The only lies I heard were the same ones spewing from Trumpâs mouth as per usual. ...
For the sake of clarity...here are some of the false or misleading claims Trump made during the debate:
⢠Claimed Biden "encouraged" Russia to attack Ukraine, when in fact Biden has consistently supported Ukraine and warned Putin against invasion
⢠Called Biden a "Manchurian candidate" who was "paid by China", for which there is no evidence
⢠Stated immigrants are "killing our citizens at a level we've never seen", which is not supported by statistics
⢠Asserted Biden's policies have allowed terrorists and criminals to cross the border illegally, fostering a crime wave - experts say this does not represent a broader trend
⢠Claimed veterans and soldiers "can't stand" Biden, when Trump himself reportedly denigrated military officials while in office
⢠Accused Biden of corruption related to payments from a Chinese energy company, for which there is no evidence
⢠Implied Biden was responsible for "killing so many at our border", an assertion not backed up by statistics
⢠Characterized Biden as weak and disrespected by global leaders, without providing evidence
Trump's attacks lacked context, were vague enough to be misleading, or were not substantiated with facts or statistics. The debate moderators did not fact-check these claims during the event.
As I'm going through the parts of the debate I missed I see that Biden brought up Charlottesville all by himself, repeated the now thoroughly debunked lie and restated how it was the deciding factor to run.
Worse is that Biden is so committed to this lie, he really believes that what he is saying is true. And you are just as committed to supporting the lie as your guy Biden is.
So, yeah, I'm correct in what I stated on the subject.
.
Edit : So how does the guy you saw tonight compare to the guy you saw in this not very old video clip ?
Hey there Champ!
The only lies I heard were the same ones spewing from Trumpâs mouth as per usual. There is no lie in Joe's motivation for running because of Charlottesville. Trump sh*t the bed there in his discussion of it. He should never have said that there were âfine people on both sidesâ. Given how it played out, what rational person would say that in the moment? If given the opportunity to say the wrong thing⦠Trump will jump at the chance to do it⦠every time.
So if you have trouble with Joe being motivated to run because of a statement that Trump should not have made, should he just have said âI decided to run because Trump is a racistâ? Would that have been more palatable to you?
Biden brought it up out of the blue in one of his ramblings about how Trump is unfit and why he (Biden) decided to run for office the first time and using it again for this election. I took immediate notice of that with the accusation so freshly being refuted by Snopes. I was surprised (not really) that Biden still trotted it out with its validity being crushed so recently. Just another example to me of how shameless and deceitful Biden is.
Ah okay I'm up to speed now. I'm not being snarky/sarcastic when I say the Snopes article is a bit tricky to follow, but Islander has it: He didn't literally say that neo-Nazis are very fine people. That's the extent of the debunking.
Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.
So since there were no very fine people attending the rally, Trump was incorrect when he said there were very fine people on both sides. That, as Islander pointed out, is a split-hair different from the debunked "Trump called white supremacists Very Fine People."
I saw that editor's note when I first read the article. It is clearly an out for them to inject an CYA opinion or spin into an article that is supposed to be based upon facts alone. That editors note is misleading and nullifies the entire premise of the article itself. That is the way Snopes rolls. Snopes is not the unbiased truth seeker they portray themselves to be, imo.
So here is the actual transcript.
Reporter: Mr. President, are you putting what you're calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?
Trump: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I'm saying is this: You had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You've just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.
Reporter: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?
Trump: I do think there is blame — yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
Reporter:The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
Trump: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did — you had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status, are we gonna take down — excuse me — are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay good. Are we gonna take down the statue? Cause he was a major slaveowner. Now are we gonna take down his statue? So you know what? It's fine. You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats, you got a lot of bad people in the other group too.
Reporter: I'm sorry sir, I didn't understand what you were saying, you were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I don't understand what you're saying.
Trump: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there was some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people. Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you wanna call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest — and very legally protest — because I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this, there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. A horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
The article goes on to say
Despite Trump's explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, the majority of far-right leaders and groups received the speech positively.
You have those who will attach themselves to anything they can to legitimize themselves in their own minds regardless of persuasion or political orientation. So rather than make that distinction, the left and the media chose to throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes.
And here we are today, still arguing about it as Biden once again drags it up inspite of Snopes finally coming around after all these years to say false. Albeit with a nullifying editorial out to save face with their constituency. Which has worked because others besides you have mentioned it and used it ignore the facts themselves and embrace the spin that has worked to this day and is still working to obfuscate the real truth.
This incident is the foundation for the narrative that Trump is an outright lynching racist. It is based upon a lie. A very carefully nurtured and curated lie by the left and their media partners used to obstruct Trump in anyway that they can.
Oh, and an OBTW, my angry broad brushed rant a couple of days ago was directed at the hard core regular political posters, only. They know who they are. You are not a regular poster in that regard and was not directed at you or the others who only occasionally show up in these threads.
Another OBTW, we're good and always have been as far as I am concerned. I'll just take this moment to explain why I have never, ever since posted in prayers and positive thoughts thread since the time when Justine's mother passed. Randy really pissed me off when he interjected his opinion that I always try to make something about me. It was when you posed a thought that you actually made with me in mind when you remarked about some commonalities we shared regarding life in the East Bay. I responded accordingly and Randy misread the conversation and jumped in with his usual spiteful remarks he makes when someone with my political thoughts shows up somewhere and ran me out of there. I've been wanting to air this out for a few years and I am glad I finally did.
Ah okay I'm up to speed now. I'm not being snarky/sarcastic when I say the Snopes article is a bit tricky to follow, but Islander has it: He didn't literally say that neo-Nazis are very fine people. That's the extent of the debunking.
Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.
So since there were no very fine people attending the rally, Trump was incorrect when he said there were very fine people on both sides. That, as Islander pointed out, is a split-hair different from the debunked "Trump called white supremacists Very Fine People."
That's what trump is good at. Make statements that can be parsed to deflect from the point he is making. Maybe there are very fine people who didn't realise they were attending a rally organised by white supremacists but were out to support the white supremacists cause. Doesn't sound very fine to me in that context. But it's an easy way for him to avoid actually saying he doesn't want the support of white supremacists and, as president, would work to counter the rise of white supremacy. I think it's called speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Ah okay I'm up to speed now. I'm not being snarky/sarcastic when I say the Snopes article is a bit tricky to follow, but Islander has it: He didn't literally say that neo-Nazis are very fine people. That's the extent of the debunking.
Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.
So since there were no very fine people attending the rally, Trump was incorrect when he said there were very fine people on both sides. That, as Islander pointed out, is a split-hair different from the debunked "Trump called white supremacists Very Fine People."
Just this evening the news ran a clip of him saying "migrants are stealing black jobs". There are only black jobs if you're a racist.
Biden brought it up out of the blue in one of his ramblings about how Trump is unfit and why he (Biden) decided to run for office the first time and using it again for this election. I took immediate notice of that with the accusation so freshly being refuted by Snopes. I was surprised (not really) that Biden still trotted it out with its validity being crushed so recently. Just another example to me of how shameless and deceitful Biden is.
Ah okay I'm up to speed now. I'm not being snarky/sarcastic when I say the Snopes article is a bit tricky to follow, but Islander has it: He didn't literally say that neo-Nazis are very fine people. That's the extent of the debunking.
Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.
So since there were no very fine people attending the rally, Trump was incorrect when he said there were very fine people on both sides. That, as Islander pointed out, is a split-hair different from the debunked "Trump called white supremacists Very Fine People."
Biden brought it up out of the blue in one of his ramblings about how Trump is unfit and why he (Biden) decided to run for office the first time and using it again for this election. I took immediate notice of that with the accusation so freshly being refuted by Snopes. I was surprised (not really) that Biden still trotted it out with its validity being crushed so recently. Just another example to me of how shameless and deceitful Biden is.
I see that Biden brought up Charlottesville all by himself, repeated the now thoroughly debunked lie
So Trump was talking about Charlottesville being debunked too. What? Fill me in on the thinking there.
Biden brought it up out of the blue in one of his ramblings about how Trump is unfit and why he (Biden) decided to run for office the first time and using it again for this election. I took immediate notice of that with the accusation so freshly being refuted by Snopes. I was surprised (not really) that Biden still trotted it out with its validity being crushed so recently. Just another example to me of how shameless and deceitful Biden is.
This might turn out to be the best thing. Joe steps aside and the deep, high quality Democratic bench with younger people step up. Fingers crossed. This might have been a fantastic opportunity.
Really? Your proof is a soundbite on Colbert? 𤣠If you are really going to split hairs (which is exactly what you are doing) earlier in the interview he says he was going to run but what clinched it for him was Charlottesville. I wouldn’t take that as the only reason he ran but feel free to put your spin on it. Oh, and I don’t see where the lie is. Trump had every opportunity to clearly denounce what happened there but failed to do so.
Hey there, little buddy !
As I'm going through the parts of the debate I missed I see that Biden brought up Charlottesville all by himself, repeated the now thoroughly debunked lie and restated how it was the deciding factor to run.
Worse is that Biden is so committed to this lie, he really believes that what he is saying is true. And you are just as committed to supporting the lie as your guy Biden is.
So, yeah, I'm correct in what I stated on the subject. .
Edit : So how does the guy you saw tonight compare to the guy you saw in this not very old video clip ?
