First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Edge-]

Fact checkers certainly are.

Good thing we can look at the sources they cite to decide if they are expressing that bias or simply reporting on the facts. Unless you're going to start claiming that reality is biased against Trump and consequently reality isn't fair...which is true (reality isn't fair), but also hilarious.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It started way before then, it started when I attacked both sides, but it was only the Hillary supporters who started trashing me.

Your "attacks" on Trump are limited to "Yeah he's shitty too" when bashing Hillary,

It's funny that you always mention how much of Clinton's own party "hates her" when it's really just a disapproval, not hate, but they're still looking to support and vote for her. If they hated her, they wouldn't be voting for her. Meanwhile a pretty significant part of the Republican party is part of the "Never Trump" movement that not just hates him but is sticking money into ensuring he never becomes president.

Funny how you never mention that Mr Awake.

[Deleted]

...if you're one of those that belives Dump is just Trolling... >_<

I mean, if it was - it would be the most backfiring trolling ever. He's encouraged so much hatred, he has lost almost every endorsement, his tv contract canceled, his current stuff is now under investigation.

Ending it all with "fooled you!" Is going to make him look even more stupid

Even though the police force endorses trump and most military generals aswel so Don't know what you mean by lost almost every endorsement.

Owh and why isn't the hillary foundation still being fully investigated?

[DeadmanWalking]

More added fun: Russia's media also says Clinton won the debate.

RUSSIA!

Even Trumpers can't deny that he barely mentioned emails or TPP and never once mentioned Beng*orgasm*azhi, or the pay to play allegations through the Clinton foundation towards access to the white house, so ultimately he failed to to use his best weapons against her while she fully excercised her full military might upon him. She had no problem lining up her shots. Since she prepared *gasp, the horror!* she knew how to bait him into those attacks.

[Daerio]

Good thing we can look at the sources they cite to decide if they are expressing that bias or simply reporting on the facts. Unless you're going to start claiming that reality is biased against Trump and consequently reality isn't fair...which is true (reality isn't fair), but also hilarious.

I'm interested to hear how you plan to mathematically measure bias, because I don't see that working out.

[jimboa24]

Because he can't let things go.
He has the temper and thin skin of a 13 year old.
FFS he was bringing up his grudge against Rosie O'Donnell from 10 years ago at a Presidential debate.

Yeah, totally give him the most powerful position in the world. Sounds like a great idea.

It's a better idea than giving it to Hillary. I at least trust Trump to be so inept that he won't be very effective, which essentially leaves the power to Congress. Best case, he surrounds himself with a good team of advisers who at least know what they're doing and he lets them run things while he plays golf. Worst case scenario, he's as crazy as the media would have you believe (which is impossible) and he's either impeached or kept in check by Congress. Most likely scenario in my opinion is that he's just in this for bragging rights and as soon as he's elected basically checks out and doesn't do a damn thing, which again leaves Congress to run things.

Hillary will actually try to get things done, and no, that's not a good thing because I disagree with her fundamentally on almost every social and economic point, plus I think she's as fucking corrupt as even the most gibbering insane of tinfoil-hat-wearers claim she is. Plus her time as Secretary of State is nothing to brag about - she was shitty at her job. She's corrupt, she's the antithesis of everything I believe in, she's terrible, and I would rather put a 70-year-old spoiled brat with thin skin in the White House than her.

[Deleted]

Here Fact checkers

[Edge-]

I'm interested to hear how you plan to mathematically measure bias, because I don't see that working out.

Go to fact checking article.

See the conclusion that the fact checkers came up with. Check their sources to ensure that they are valid and that they back up the conclusion.

Be satisfied that the sources do/disappointed they don't and then continue doing whatever I was doing before.

This isn't rocket science. Hell, you don't even need a highschool diploma for this, much less a college degree.

Here Fact checkers

I agree that the whole focus on the Howard Stern interview comment are silly, but come on now. Who specifically said that Trump "never had reservations" about Iraq? That's a point I've literally never seen made.

The focus is currently on his 2002 comment to Stern that expressed mostly indifference but also some weak support. That's before the 2003 comment Cavuto is talking about. This is called misdirection.

[Deleted]

From your own source:
That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course,

Actions the Obama administration took lead to the Islamic State being a thing.

So...wanna tell me when the US and Britain invaded? I'll wait.

Yes, because Trump seriously suggested that Obama was a founding member of ISIS - That is clearly the not the most absurd way to parse that comment.

By the way, nothing you posted makes a dent in the timeline

I'm like 90% certain this will be completely pointless, but link me that.

I'm sure that recently declassified document from June of 2015 is going to be used in a relevant context any day now.

I'm deeply saddened that it wasn't given a benghazi style hearing - because it really fucking deserves it.

[gusty jack]

I'm sure its lower now since the email leak.

Making things up is fun, and sure beats having to rely on facts. Facts aren't for those who are truly awake, they're for those who get their information from Youtube highlight videos.

Why look to a primary source when you can look to secondary sources! It's like you never learned the basics of how to do research.

[Daerio]

Here Fact checkers

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/09/27/...who-was-right/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-a..._New_York_City

On October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case.

Fact checkers have to actually check their facts, more than once that idiot called Trump out for being wrong when he was.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Go to fact checking article.

See the conclusion that the fact checkers came up with. Check their sources to ensure that they are valid and that they back up the conclusion.

Be satisfied that the sources do/disappointed they don't and then continue doing whatever I was doing before.

This isn't rocket science. Hell, you don't even need a highschool diploma for this, much less a college degree.

They won't, because they know doing the research and checking on the facts will prove they are correct and Trump is a massive liar.

Hell we had a guy earlier in this thread claiming stop and frisk wasn't ruled unconstitutional (it was in 2013) because Trump said so... Trump supported the war on Iraq in 2001/02 and said so many times, and he's claiming he never did, despite us having plenty of quotes that he did.

[Daerio]

Go to fact checking article.

See the conclusion that the fact checkers came up with. Check their sources to ensure that they are valid and that they back up the conclusion.

Be satisfied that the sources do/disappointed they don't and then continue doing whatever I was doing before.

This isn't rocket science. Hell, you don't even need a highschool diploma for this, much less a college degree.

I'm not seeing any numbers or math involved here. What's your metric, feels?

[Deleted]

Go to fact checking article.

See the conclusion that the fact checkers came up with. Check their sources to ensure that they are valid and that they back up the conclusion.

Be satisfied that the sources do/disappointed they don't and then continue doing whatever I was doing before.

This isn't rocket science. Hell, you don't even need a highschool diploma for this, much less a college degree.



I agree that the whole focus on the Howard Stern interview comment are silly, but come on now. Who specifically said that Trump "never had reservations" about Iraq? That's a point I've literally never seen made.

The focus is currently on his 2002 comment to Stern that expressed mostly indifference but also some weak support. That's before the 2003 comment Cavuto is talking about. This is called misdirection.

Its been tested, It found that Fox was the most unbiased news network.

[gusty jack]

Fact checkers certainly are.

Damn those fact checkers for only checking the facts that we don't already know are true!

[Bakis]

Its been tested, It found that Fox was the most unbiased news network.

Thats a first, which Muminland source is that?

[Deleted]

You seem to be under the opinion that a Vegas casino will, for whatever reason, give odds that will cause them to lose money. I'm not sure you've been to Vegas. It's thinking like that, that could bankrupt a casino in Atlantic City.

Oh...wait...

Fun joke - I'm saying that after the debate, a lot of money moved into the betting that prior had been held awaiting the debate, The sudden shift is not reflective of a sudden massive shift, its 7 days of betting going in a single day.

[gusty jack]

Speaking as someone is is definitely voting Trump (because fuck Hillary, I'd rather vote for the antichrist than her)

This is why no one takes Trump's diehard supporters seriously.

What does this even mean? You'd vote for an assured nuclear holocaust rather than Clinton?

Watch that you don't cut yourself on that edge, friend.

[Edge-]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/09/27/...who-was-right/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-a..._New_York_City

Fact checkers have to actually check their facts, more than once that idiot called Trump out for being wrong when he was.

You missed the next part

On November 9, 2013, the city asked a federal appeals court to vacate Scheindlin's orders.[30][31] On November 22, 2013, the federal appellate court rejected the city's motion for a stay of the judge's orders.[32]

Also the important part -

On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional and directed the Police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized.[22][23]

This ruling has not changed and remains in place. Can't see the WSJ article, so no clue what their commentary on the issue is.

I'm not seeing any numbers or math involved here. What's your metric, feels?

Math? We're talking about fact checking, not algebra.

And "feels" is the GOP's thing this election.

Its been tested, It found that Fox was the most unbiased news network.

By whom? Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with Cavuto's misdirection away from Trump's 2002 comment to a totally unrelated and as far as I can tell made up claim that he's responding to.

[gusty jack]

Its not a simple get over it..

She did it people died she is not in anyway allowed to be a president. heck even run for president.

She is though, and she is. She's allowed to do both, and she's doing both.