Debate lying: Trump lies 34 times. Clinton 4 times.

[sdsubball23]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...al-debate.html

How do Trump supporters defend this? Did the article make any false accusations? Or are they correct?

[JK/SEA]

who cares what a liberal rag from canada thinks...

$#@! canada...or is it Northern Mexico now?...

[enhanced_deficit]

This is bad, Clinton was supposed to have zero lies since all her script was prepared and supposed to have gone through checking by lawyers & polling focus groups. With 78% dishonesty rating, she cannot afford even one more new lie between now and election day consdering the way race has tightened so unexpectedly or even giving edge to Trumpster in electoral map in some polls.

[Brian4Liberty]

CNN did a "fact check" on the issue of Russia hacking the DNC. Trump said no one knows for sure, Hillary said it was Russia. CNN said that Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Their reasoning? Because they think that Russia is the most likely suspect.

Fact checking my ass. Ministry of Truth propaganda.

[enhanced_deficit]

CNN did a "fact check" on the issue of Russia hacking the DNC. Trump said no one knows for sure, Hillary said it was Russia. CNN said that Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Their reasoning? Because they think that Russia is the most likely suspect.

Fact checking my ass. Ministry of Truth propaganda.

This.

[Antischism]

CNN did a "fact check" on the issue of Russia hacking the DNC. Trump said no one knows for sure, Hillary said it was Russia. CNN said that Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Their reasoning? Because they think that Russia is the most likely suspect.

Fact checking my ass. Ministry of Truth propaganda.

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

[jllundqu]

LMAO

15) Falsely said, “We have a Fed that's doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level.” (There is no evidence that Yellen has kept rates low to help Obama or Clinton, as Trump is suggesting. In fact, he himself endorsed her strategy on CNBC in May.)

[Ender]

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

How about these 2:

1) Falsely said “you’re wrong” when the moderator told him a judge ruled New York City’s “stop and frisk” program unconstitutional. (That happened in 2013.)

10) Falsely said murder has increased in New York City under the current mayor who opposes stop and frisk: “Murders are up. All right. You check it.” (In Bill de Blasio’s first year, 2014, the number of murders hit another historic low: 328. The city is still near that pace; there have been 246 so far this year, down from last year.)

[Brian4Liberty]

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

As I said, it was CNN, not the Toronto Star. It was commentary on the entire concept of the media performing "fact checking".

You should go over them one by one and independently verify them, as you seem to have the time for it.

[timosman]

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

Don't forget to read a few books while at it. I will send you the list.

[Ender]

As I said, it was CNN, not the Toronto Star. It was commentary on the entire concept of the media performing "fact checking".

You should go over them one by one and independently verify them, as you seem to have the time for it.

I had already Fact Checked 1 & 10 before the debate- knew Trump was blowing it on those 2 immediately.

[Origanalist]

C'mon, chances are that if either one of them are talking it's going to be a lie. There's no way it was that lopsided.

[puppetmaster]

C'mon, chances are that if either one of them are talking it's going to be a lie. There's no way it was that lopsided.

this

[juleswin]

CNN did a "fact check" on the issue of Russia hacking the DNC. Trump said no one knows for sure, Hillary said it was Russia. CNN said that Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Their reasoning? Because they think that Russia is the most likely suspect.

Fact checking my ass. Ministry of Truth propaganda.

Indeed, I think they are talking about the fact according to State dept. Also listed as facts are
- Russian rebels shot down the Malaysian flight
- Russia invaded Ukraine.
- Russia paid you to make this post
etc etc etc.

Nice catch Brian.

[dannno]

C'mon, chances are that if either one of them are talking it's going to be a lie. There's no way it was that lopsided.

Yep, the fact that it is so lopsided is really just a big fat endorsement for Trump.

[Brian4Liberty]

I had already Fact Checked 1 & 10 before the debate- knew Trump was blowing it on those 2 immediately.

Yeah, the topic of stop and frisk is complicated. I haven't kept up on it.

Here is some commentary on the court ruling in New York. Was the ruling based entirely upon race? Is it still constitutional to stop and frisk if it's white people?:

Trump is wrong about the judge’s ruling, but it’s complicated. U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin did rule in 2013 that the stop and frisk practice violated the Constitution in the landmark case, Floyd v. City of New York. But it didn’t end there.

Judge Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk, in practice, had a discriminatory effect on blacks and Hispanics, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “The Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition on selective enforcement means that suspicious blacks and Hispanics may not be treated differently by the police than equally suspicious whites,” the judge said. You can read Judge Scheindlin’s opinion below.

However, the city did ask the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the ruling, but the court said no. Scheindlin was removed from the case, so Trump was right about that. The city later reached a settlement with the plaintiffs that involved withdrawing their appeal.
...
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/deba...onstitutional/

Was it only found unconstitutional in New York? This case never went to a higher court.

In fact, Holt correctly noted that "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men" and was "a form of racial profiling." While Giuliani and right-wing media have been quick to defend stop-and-frisk policing, in 2013 a federal judge found it "violated the constitutional rights of minorities" as practiced in New York City, writing that it allowed police officers to stop "blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white."
...
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...utional/213358

So this ruling is all about "racial profiling" and not about probable cause and due process? FFS, what a charade.

OK, and so the Supreme Court has ruled on stop and frisk and found it constitutional?

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

I would strongly disagree with that ruling, but it appears the Supreme Court has ruled on it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[82]

[silverhandorder]

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

How quick you are to defend CNN. Regular watcher?

[moostraks]

How quick you are to defend CNN. Regular watcher?

Are you? Seems like they employ enough Trump campaign surrogates that you wouldn't need to go only to Infowars or Breitbart for your daily dose of bs.

Then again, I'm thinking your more the National Enquirer type of voter.

[silverhandorder]

Are you? Seems like they employ enough Trump campaign surrogates that you wouldn't need to go only to Infowars or Breitbart for your daily dose of bs.

Then again, I'm thinking your more the National Enquirer type of voter.

You are a liberal pretending to be rp supporter.

[Cleaner44]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...al-debate.html

How do Trump supporters defend this? Did the article make any false accusations? Or are they correct?

I don't think they need to defend this. Nobody expects politicians, candidates, presidents, etc to be honest and not lie. Quite the contrary, I think Americans expect to be lied to by these people. Were you under the impression that people expect to be told the truth and not lied to?

[Antischism]

As I said, it was CNN, not the Toronto Star. It was commentary on the entire concept of the media performing "fact checking".

You should go over them one by one and independently verify them, as you seem to have the time for it.

Who should be fact checking, then? Only your approved sources? You know what the beauty of openly fact checking is? You can easily verify if they're correct or incorrect. Anyone is free to dispute the myriad fact checks, but you better be able to back it up with evidence.

[AngryCanadian]

Toronto star is very liberal.

[misterx]

CNN did a "fact check" on the issue of Russia hacking the DNC. Trump said no one knows for sure, Hillary said it was Russia. CNN said that Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Their reasoning? Because they think that Russia is the most likely suspect.

Fact checking my ass. Ministry of Truth propaganda.

Ditto. I watched the debate, expecting Trump to lie. I didn't see him lie at all like he has in past debates. The closest he came was when he said, "she doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina." He implied that he didn't say she doesn't have the look, but technically he didn't deny it. He should've just said, "this is silly. We have 90 minutes to tell the American people how we are going to improve their lives. I don't want to waste it with petty bickering. Let's talk about the substantive issues, like my opponent's proposal to increase estate taxes to 65%, which would force small, family-owned farms to sell out to giant conglomerates."

[fisharmor]

My wife and 9yo daughter made a pact that they are going to go as long as they possibly can without finding out who the new president is.

I think I'll join them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who should be fact checking, then? Only your approved sources? You know what the beauty of openly fact checking is? You can easily verify if they're correct or incorrect. Anyone is free to dispute the myriad fact checks, but you better be able to back it up with evidence.

It's safe to assume that everything from the Ministry of Truth (aka CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc) has an agenda or spin.

Where is your evidence one way or another on any of the "fact checks". You probably didn't read the OP article, but let's start at the beginning:

1) Falsely said “you’re wrong” when the moderator told him a judge ruled New York City’s “stop and frisk” program unconstitutional. (That happened in 2013.)

Where's the evidence for that "fact check"? Where's a bit of discussion of the nuances?

Here's the debate:

HOLT: Your two -- your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.

TRUMP: No, you're wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed.

Earlier in the thread I posted info on this, which would indicate that both Holt and Trump had defensible positions. They may have been talking past each other, but it is not a simple case of "Holt right", "Trump wrong".

What does "constitutional" mean in this case? An original reading of the 4th? A Supreme Court ruling that OKed stop and frisk? A lower court ruling that applies to New York that was not persued any further, that apparently thinks that stop and frisk is OK as long as it's not based on racial profiling?

[Brian4Liberty]

Is that the only fact check you had an issue with? You should go over them all, one by one, and point out where they're incorrect if you're going to contend that it's "propaganda." Sounds more like willful ignorance to me.

And considering my post was about Russia, perhaps you can provide us with your evidence and facts that prove that Putin and Russia hacked the DNC?

[Ender]

It's safe to assume that everything from the Ministry of Truth (aka CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc) has an agenda or spin.

Where is your evidence one way or another on any of the "fact checks". You probably didn't read the OP article, but let's start at the beginning:



Where's the evidence for that "fact check"? Where's a bit of discussion of the nuances?

Here's the debate:



Earlier in the thread I posted info on this, which would indicate that both Holt and Trump had defensible positions. They may have been talking past each other, but it is not a simple case of "Holt right", "Trump wrong".

What does "constitutional" mean in this case? An original reading of the 4th? A Supreme Court ruling that OKed stop and frisk? A lower court ruling that applies to New York that was not persued any further, that apparently thinks that stop and frisk is OK as long as it's not based on racial profiling?

http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-ma...-frisk-case#/0

[QUOTE]NEW YORK—Mayor Bill de Blasio today announced a historic agreement in the Floyd vs. City of New York case, taking steps to end the years-long legal battle that found the overuse of stop-and-frisk unconstitutional. Standing with plaintiffs, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and incoming Corporation Counsel Zach Carter in Brownsville, Brooklyn, the mayor pledged to reunite police with communities across the city and to respect the constitutional rights of every New Yorker.

“This is a defining moment in our history. It’s a defining moment for millions of our families, especially those with young men of color. And it will lay the foundation for not only keeping us the safest big city in America, but making us safer still. This will be one city, where everyone’s rights are respected, and where police and community stand together to confront violence,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“We will not break the law to enforce the law. That’s my solemn promise to every New Yorker, regardless of where they were born, where they live, or what they look like. Those values aren’t at odds with keeping New Yorkers safe—they are essential to long-term public safety. We are committed to fulfilling our obligations under this agreement as we protect and serve this great city,” said Police Commissioner Bill Bratton.

Under the agreement with plaintiffs announced today, a court-appointed monitor will serve for three years, overseeing the NYPD’s reform of its stop-and-frisk policy. The monitor is empowered to report to federal court on the city’s progress meeting its obligation to abide by the United States Constitution. The city will also take part in a joint process with community stakeholders to ensure people affected by stop-and-frisk play an active role in shaping reform.[/QUOTE]

[Antischism]

It's safe to assume that everything from the Ministry of Truth (aka CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc) has an agenda or spin.

Where is your evidence one way or another on any of the "fact checks". You probably didn't read the OP article, but let's start at the beginning:



Where's the evidence for that "fact check"? Where's a bit of discussion of the nuances?

Here's the debate:



Earlier in the thread I posted info on this, which would indicate that both Holt and Trump had defensible positions. They may have been talking past each other, but it is not a simple case of "Holt right", "Trump wrong".

What does "constitutional" mean in this case? An original reading of the 4th? A Supreme Court ruling that OKed stop and frisk? A lower court ruling that applies to New York that was not persued any further, that apparently thinks that stop and frisk is OK as long as it's not based on racial profiling?

Sure, but fact checking can be done by anyone, and agenda isn't going to make it any less true or false when you have evidence.

Nuance is fine, but there was no nuance when Trump claimed that it wasn't ruled unconstitutional. His only argument was that it would have been ruled constitutional if the appeal was never dropped, which is speculative at best.

How about these 2:

Not sure if you're contending that he was correct, but I'll answer it anyway.

1. This was in regards to the way the NYPD was carrying out stop and frisk as per Floyd v. City of New York, not stop and frisk as ruled constitutional in Terry v. Ohio. It wasn't being applied fairly, and instead, targeted minorities disproportionately without reasonable suspicion. In other words, it was being selectively enforced on people who just happened to live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates, regardless of reasonable suspicion.

It was indeed ruled unconstitutional in New York in 2013 by U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, and an appeal was later dropped. This, of course, only applies to where the ruling was made.

2. Murder has indeed declined since Bill de Blasio took office in 2014, which exhibited a drop from the previous year. There was an increase last year (though this was the case nationwide in major cities), but this year, comparing murder to the same point last year, we've seen a 5.3% decline, so it's on a trajectory to remain constant with our decline over the last few years. Furthermore, since ruling stop and frisk as conducted by the NYPD unconstitutional, we've continued on the downward trajectory.

[Brian4Liberty]

1. This was in regards to the way the NYPD was carrying out stop and frisk as per Floyd v. City of New York, not stop and frisk as ruled constitutional in Terry v. Ohio.

That is your interpretation of the question from Holt, but he was interrupting Trump who had been talking about the national level. Trump said it is used all over the nation, which indicates he was still talking about the national level, and probably believes that it takes takes precedence over the New York case.

Of course it's likely that neither Holt or Trump have that much knowledge of the subject. What percentage of the debate audience or the readers of these simple "fact checks" know this detail? Not much. A simple statement of right or wrong on this part of the debate requires a bias to even make that kind of simplified judgement, thus, it is spin.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-ma...-frisk-case#/0
...
[B]Under the agreement with plaintiffs announced today, a court-appointed monitor will serve for three years, overseeing the NYPD’s reform of its stop-and-frisk policy. The monitor is empowered to report to federal court on the city’s progress meeting its obligation to abide by the United States Constitution. The city will also take part in a joint process with community stakeholders to ensure people affected by stop-and-frisk play an active role in shaping reform.

So, racial quotas on stop and frisk?