ADVERTISEMENT

The New Lounge

For the third time you are ignoring what was totally wrong and disgusting with what he said because he is ate up in partisan politics. We can move on. You're okay with his disgraceful attitude, you've said enough.
Republicans politicized his son's death. His comment was in response to that, criticizing them. His "wish" was not for the purpose of furthering his own political agenda; it was to silence the Republicans misusing his son's death for their political agenda. You have to be really stupid and lacking some basic human decency not to understand that.

The New Lounge

For the third time: The grieving father is not politicizing his son's death. He is calling out Republicans who politicized his son's death.

And no, you don't have empathy for him. If you had empathy, you would understand his frustration that Republicans are politicizing the death of his son. You agree with the Republicans' messaging and therefore give them a pass. You're really backwards and disgusting.
For the third time you are ignoring what was totally wrong and disgusting with what he said because he is ate up in partisan politics. We can move on. You're okay with his disgraceful attitude, you've said enough.
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

The New Lounge

You realize I was talking about during the debate and by the moderators?
Yes:
According to Newsweek, the mods fact-checked President Trump 4 times: (1) "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," (2) "...no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," (3) "...overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country," and (4) "..60 cases in front of many judges, many of them Republican, looked at it and said there was no widespread fraud." Those are some doozies, and pretty easy to predict and therefore prepare for. He also lied way, way more than Harris. What were they supposed to fact-check with Harris? that "nearly $4,000" was the high end projection from a liberal group? or debate what constitutes a "combat zone" where troops are deployed?
So again, what were they supposed to fact-check w/ VP Harris, who was much more accurate and truthful?

The New Lounge

ABC did a fact-check afterward:
* VP Harris received 3 "True" ratings and 3 "False" ratings
* President Trump received 0 "True" ratings and 6 "False ratings
* Harris also received 4 ratings of "Needs context" and 3 others rated some degree of truth
* Trump also received 1 "True, but needs context," 1 "Needs context," 1 "Misleading," and 3 others rated some degree of false
So the total is 10 truths/truth-ish & 3 false for Harris; 3 truth-ish & 9 false/false-ish for Trump. And that's giving Trump credit for a "Misleading" statement. So President Trump lied much more than VP Harris. It makes sense that if anyone was fact-checked more by the mods, it would be him.

Politifact:
Harris- false, true, 2 mostly false, half true (total: 1-4 at worst)
Trump- 6 false, 3 "Pants on Fire!" (so even worse than "false"), 2 mostly false, 2 half true, and a mostly true (total: 3-11 at best)

Reuters: Their analyses are more narrative, with no consistent, succinct ratings.

FactCheck.org: Like Reuters, it's narrative and hard to tally.

According to Newsweek, the mods fact-checked President Trump 4 times: (1) "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," (2) "...no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," (3) "...overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country," and (4) "..60 cases in front of many judges, many of them Republican, looked at it and said there was no widespread fraud." Those are some doozies, and pretty easy to predict and therefore prepare for. He also lied way, way more than Harris. What were they supposed to fact-check with Harris? that "nearly $4,000" was the high end projection from a liberal group? or debate what constitutes a "combat zone" where troops are deployed?
You realize I was talking about during the debate and by the moderators?

The New Lounge

No. A grieving father does not use his son’s death to take shots at republicans. A grieving father wishes his son was not murdered. He doesn't wish his son was murdered by a 60 year old white man instead. I have empathy for him. I have empathy for everyone who loses someone close to them, even Michael Brown's mother. What I don't have for him is respect. I think he is a disgusting liberal who is so ate up in politics that he would wish his son was murdered by the evil white man instead of the helpless asylum seeker instead of just wishing his son wasn't murdered at all. He chose to put himself in front of a camera and say those things. For you to defend him is wild as hell.
For the third time: The grieving father is not politicizing his son's death. He is calling out Republicans who politicized his son's death.

And no, you don't have empathy for him. If you had empathy, you would understand his frustration that Republicans are politicizing the death of his son. You agree with the Republicans' messaging and therefore give them a pass. You're really backwards and disgusting.

The New Lounge

I don't think it's a bad thing to correct a candidate or provide context for what they say if it is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The problem is they only did it on one side. They also led Kamala's talking points multiple times. 3 on 1 and Trump only moderately made a fool out of himself. He's grown up so much.
ABC did a fact-check afterward:
* VP Harris received 3 "True" ratings and 3 "False" ratings
* President Trump received 0 "True" ratings and 6 "False ratings
* Harris also received 4 ratings of "Needs context" and 3 others rated some degree of truth
* Trump also received 1 "True, but needs context," 1 "Needs context," 1 "Misleading," and 3 others rated some degree of false
So the total is 10 truths/truth-ish & 3 false for Harris; 3 truth-ish & 9 false/false-ish for Trump. And that's giving Trump credit for a "Misleading" statement. So President Trump lied much more than VP Harris. It makes sense that if anyone was fact-checked more by the mods, it would be him.

Politifact:
Harris- false, true, 2 mostly false, half true (total: 1-4 at worst)
Trump- 6 false, 3 "Pants on Fire!" (so even worse than "false"), 2 mostly false, 2 half true, and a mostly true (total: 3-11 at best)

Reuters: Their analyses are more narrative, with no consistent, succinct ratings.

FactCheck.org: Like Reuters, it's narrative and hard to tally.

According to Newsweek, the mods fact-checked President Trump 4 times: (1) "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," (2) "...no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," (3) "...overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country," and (4) "..60 cases in front of many judges, many of them Republican, looked at it and said there was no widespread fraud." Those are some doozies, and pretty easy to predict and therefore prepare for. He also lied way, way more than Harris. What were they supposed to fact-check with Harris? that "nearly $4,000" was the high end projection from a liberal group? or debate what constitutes a "combat zone" where troops are deployed?

duke football news

so people are reaching out to several of our '25 recruits still. Evan Scott who rivals gave an 5.5 barely a P4 level OT is hearing from UGA, OHIO ST, UVA and others. might be time for a re-evaluation. Jaivon Solomon WR says LSU and GA TECH are trying to get him to come for visits. Manny has a good eye for recruits i think
It falls into the good news/bad news category. It’s bad that some of our recruits are still being pursued by top=level programs, but the good news is that we’re recruiting the type of talent that those schools want. I guess it’s a good problem to have.

The New Lounge

I'll try again... A grieving father doesn't want Republicans using his son's death to take shots at undocumented immigrants.
I am responding to your disgusting post. A grieving father was addressing the misuse of his son's death by Republicans.

You have no empathy for a grieving father.
If not for the current admin’s open border policies his son would still be alive so there’s that…

The New Lounge

I'll try again... A grieving father doesn't want Republicans using his son's death to take shots at undocumented immigrants.
I am responding to your disgusting post. A grieving father was addressing the misuse of his son's death by Republicans.

You have no empathy for a grieving father.
No. A grieving father does not use his son’s death to take shots at republicans. A grieving father wishes his son was not murdered. He doesn't wish his son was murdered by a 60 year old white man instead. I have empathy for him. I have empathy for everyone who loses someone close to them, even Michael Brown's mother. What I don't have for him is respect. I think he is a disgusting liberal who is so ate up in politics that he would wish his son was murdered by the evil white man instead of the helpless asylum seeker instead of just wishing his son wasn't murdered at all. He chose to put himself in front of a camera and say those things. For you to defend him is wild as hell.
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

The New Lounge

No. He wants to grieve privately and he cannot do that now that his son’s death has been coopted by the Know-Nothing MAGAS. What is disgusting is the use Trump and his nimrods are making of it.
He puts himself in front of a camera and says that he wishes his son was murdered by a 60 year old white man instead of an illegal immigrant because he knows it is a bad look for the political party he supports. That is NOT someone who wants to grieve in private. That is someone who wants to use his son's death to take shots at the party he hates. Your argument would hold water if he simply asked that his son not be used to bring attention to the republicans agenda. But he didn't.

Every rape and murder committed by illegal immigrants should be brought to light. Especially those involving children. You will use data that is padded by inner city gang violence, domestic crimes and rampant theft caused by liberal policies in order to make it seem that crimes committed by illegal immigrants are far less than that of Americans in order to justify doing nothing about the increasing number of Americans being victims of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

The New Lounge

So stupid. You completely ignored how disgusting it is for a father of an 11 year old boy to say that he wished his son wad murdered by a 60 year old white man instead of an illegal immigrant. He used his son's death to take shots at a political party and their supporters. That's disgusting. And here you are trying to capitalize on school shootings to deflect away from this topic. There are sp many ways to point out obvious differences in the situations, but that would be playing into your hand.
I'll try again... A grieving father doesn't want Republicans using his son's death to take shots at undocumented immigrants.
I am responding to your disgusting post. A grieving father was addressing the misuse of his son's death by Republicans.

You have no empathy for a grieving father.

The New Lounge

The debate last night was not good for Trump. First off, of course it was 3 on 1. But he got reeled in. Sounds easy to say from where I sit, but he should have ONLY pounded the issues of the last four years. He got led into talking way too long on abortion, and Jan 6th, and then lookedawful about the immigrants/pet rumor from Ohio. We needed Trump, and very little Donald. We got more Donald. He had his moments, like when he said "you've been there for four years, why haven't you done anything yet?" I would have said that over and over.

She won, but it's not like she was good. Let's be real here, her bar is so low, basically all she has to do is sound enough like a politician, and not cackle. She accomplished that. Her team did a great job of prepping her.
He took the bait she set too many times. It was a poor performance She had very little in the way of policy, no surprise there, but was more poised and confident than I’d have thought possible. Of course, when you know the mods will set the table to your liking, that’s bound to help you relax We joke about Springfield here. Maybe it happened maybe it didn’t with the pets thing. But it was cringy when Trump mentioned it last night Thought he was smarter than that
  • Like
Reactions: Mac9192

The New Lounge

The debate last night was not good for Trump. First off, of course it was 3 on 1. But he got reeled in. Sounds easy to say from where I sit, but he should have ONLY pounded the issues of the last four years. He got led into talking way too long on abortion, and Jan 6th, and then looked awful about the immigrants/pet rumor from Ohio. We needed Trump, and very little Donald. We got more Donald. He had his moments, like when he said "you've been there for four years, why haven't you done anything yet?" I would have said that over and over.

She won, but it's not like she was good. Let's be real here, her bar is so low, basically all she has to do is sound enough like a politician, and not cackle. She accomplished that. Her team did a great job of prepping her.
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

The New Lounge

When the moderators fact check only one of the candidates, you know the deck is stacked. Not their role to fact check. Hopefully, the Reps will be smart enough to never allow Abc anywhere near another Pres debate, but I doubt it.
She appears competent due to low expectations and the fact she memorized a bunch of platitudes, but the fact remains she has accomplished nothing in her political career and she will be a disaster for our country and our allies, esp. Israel
I don't think it's a bad thing to correct a candidate or provide context for what they say if it is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The problem is they only did it on one side. They also led Kamala's talking points multiple times. 3 on 1 and Trump only moderately made a fool out of himself. He's grown up so much.
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

The New Lounge

Nope.

Nope.

ermuhgah, yes.
When the moderators fact check only one of the candidates, you know the deck is stacked. Not their role to fact check. Hopefully, the Reps will be smart enough to never allow Abc anywhere near another Pres debate, but I doubt it.
She appears competent due to low expectations and the fact she memorized a bunch of platitudes, but the fact remains she has accomplished nothing in her political career and she will be a disaster for our country and our allies, esp. Israel
  • Like
Reactions: RHFD
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT