U.S President: Donald Trump

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This looks a great project from The Washington Post's Fact Checker. The presence of fact-checking services would have been interesting in the run-up to the Iraq war! No one person has the time to investigate politicians' claims so this is an incredibly valuable resource. I hope the more extreme Trump supporters don't call this hard work fake news and see it for the contributor to democracy that it is.

Donald Trump 'has delivered falsehood on every single one of his 33 days as President'


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7592601.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph.../trump-claims/

Just checked WP claim that they say crime in Sweden isn't up that's bollocks, it is up. So WP earns a big fat Pinocchio.

Sweden Rape Capital of the West: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5...G73Gxk.twitter

[Pierre]

I wouldn't trust any "fact Checker" rom the WP or NYT, or CNN or MSNBC.

Not exactly impartial.

ABC news paints a complicated picture: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...ry?id=45610077

Crime certainly isn't surging. It's gone up but in the main areas that have taken migrants it's gone down. However murder has increased across Sweden but at the same time we're dealing with small numbers so an increase of 20 might not be statistically relevant......

Sweden has 15 suburbs with high crime rates, he said, but the recent influx of refugees doesn’t explain the problem. Rinkeby is one of these 15 areas.

“In 2015 a big number of refugees came to Sweden, and these were problem areas before that,” he told ABC News.

In fact, the number of reported crimes in those 15 areas decreased from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, 19,092 crimes were reported in those 15 areas — a decline from 19,576 in 2014. In 2012 the number of reported crimes in these areas was over 20,200, according to data from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Numbers for 2016 are not yet available.

Last year 112,645 violent crimes were reported in the country — an increase from 108,739 in 2015, 108,071 in 2014 and 104,738 in 2013, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Those totals include attempted murder, muggings and rape but not other types of sexual assault and murder, the council said.

In 2015 the number of murders went up to 112, from 87 the previous year. The data for 2016 have not yet been compiled, according to the council. But what these numbers don’t show is how many of the crimes were committed by asylum seekers. The statistics are based on police reports, and the reports don’t mention the suspected perpetrators’ ethnicity, citizenship or refugee status, according to the council.

Looking at those numbers I would say we're not really looking at mass problems here. Crime has gone up but it's not surging and there isn't evidence that the increase in crime is coming from areas with refugees.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Damien

You know full well I can't divulge information about the secret organisation of which I am DEFINITELY not a member. Not that it exists. Too many questions.

If you don't believe that there are a group of powerful people, who's aim is to bring about, in the future, a word government, then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Multinational trade deals, such as TPP and TTIP were back door methods to lay the ground work for this. Well done Mr Trump, for scrapping TPP and wanting trade deals between two independent nations.


But that second link I posted, from the guy who seems to be against many of Trumps policies, was also citing Soros as a funder of these mass protests against Trump. Do you dismiss his view as well?


"Disclaimer: I am not supporting Trump nor is this article really about Trump. I’m against the immigration ban, and I support all women’s rights regardless of what political party they belong to. With that said, I do not support corporatism."

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/de...1a4#.lkb14iqd7

Yes I do not think George Soros is paying for the protests. I don't care if some randomer puts a 'disclaimer' on the internet.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes I do not think George Soros is paying for the protests. I don't care if some randomer puts a 'disclaimer' on the internet.

Actually, I really thought the Breitbart article would be the one that really changed your mind

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I wouldn't trust any "fact Checker" rom the WP or NYT, or CNN or MSNBC.

Not exactly impartial.

A politically impartial main stream press is pretty much dead.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Yours is also misleading as it infers that 73% were against him.

Not to anyone capable of thinking it doesn't.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Not to anyone capable of thinking it doesn't.

Flawed response as always.

You cannot include people who are ineligible to vote because:

A) They couldn't be arsed to become eligible i.e register to vote.
B) They didn't bother to vote on the day of the Election.
C) They spoiled their vote.

All this silly arguing about percentages and BS about whose more popular blah blah, bollocks, it does not remove the fact that whether you agree or not, DJT became the 45th President and more importantly, she (Hillary Clinton) lost.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by passingbat

If you don't believe that there are a group of powerful people, who's aim is to bring about, in the future, a word government, then we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I doubt you'll find most people agreeing with this.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Mick

it does not remove the fact that whether you agree or not, DJT became the 45th President and more importantly, she (Hillary Clinton) lost.

So true. He was elected by the method that the US have set up to elect a President. End of story.


Sadly liberals don't like the results of a democratic vote that they don't agree with, especially ones that upset their politically correct liberal agenda.


Brexit and the Trump vote demonstrate this admirably.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I doubt you'll find most people who agree with this.

I really don't mind that. It does not make it wrong.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

Flawed response as always.

You cannot include people who are ineligible to vote because:

A) They couldn't be arsed to become eligible i.e register to vote.
B) They didn't bother to vote on the day of the Election.
C) They spoiled their vote.

All this silly arguing about percentages and BS about whose more popular blah blah, bollocks, it does not remove the fact that whether you agree or not, DJT became the 45th President and more importantly, she (Hillary Clinton) lost.

B and C are part of the eligible electorate and therefore included when someone erroneously claims the donald won nearly half the electorates vote, especially when they're using those claims to berate another member

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Just checked WP claim that they say crime in Sweden isn't up that's bollocks, it is up. So WP earns a big fat Pinocchio.

Sweden Rape Capital of the West: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5...G73Gxk.twitter

Where does the Washington Post claim that crime in Sweden isn't up? I'm not saying that the paper didn't say it, but I would like to see the wording and time period in question.

There is a difference between how the motivations and agendas of several different people end up creating a system in which certain people gain more than others and a coordinated effort where all these people are of the same mind. Does the world seem especially ordered and going to plan?

If it was then how did Brexit happen? Trump? Or Hollande in France? All of these people and rig world markets and events but not an election?

There is little evidence that governments or supranational organisations have the competence to pull this all off.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

B and C are part of the eligible electorate and therefore included when someone erroneously claims the donald won nearly half the electorates vote, especially when they're using those claims to berate another member

So what would've happened if Clinton had won? Would you still include those figures then?

The only erroneous claims are by those who include those who (although eligible) did not choose to vote.

As a life long non voter in General Elections I would take umbrage at any figures you used which included my non-vote to attempt to show a lesser approval rating as those that voted gave to any party or person.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

B and C are part of the eligible electorate and therefore included when someone erroneously claims the donald won nearly half the electorates vote, especially when they're using those claims to berate someone else

It does not matter, you're attempting to use a flawed way of thinking in an attempt to de-legitimize the end result when it won't change it.

Maybe in 4 years time possibly at the next Ballot box. People can cry out for Impeachment, that is easier said than done and he has to break the law in a major way first.

I read the other day that if Nixon had not resigned, there is a possibility he could have served out his full term despite the fact he was under threat of Impeachment, because the Impeachment process is complicated it's not as straight forward as people think it is.

And even after all that, if Trump is Impeached, you get Mike Pence who will just carry on some, if not all of Trump's policies. I then read that some were crying out for the Republican's to be removed from office entirely and out of the White House, they were saying, Trump, Mike Pence etc, should be Impeached and a re-election called, it's all fantasy thinking, there is nothing in the Constitution for such a thing, only Amendment that exists, is the line of succession which is, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members, beginning with the Secretary of State.

So even if Mike Pence is removed as well, it just follows the line of succession.