one every 75 seconds...

[transporter]

President Trump gave an impromptu half-hour interview with the New York Times on Dec. 28. We combed through the transcript and here’s a quick roundup of the false, misleading or dubious claims that he made, at a rate of one every 75 seconds. (Some of the interview was off the record, so it’s possible the rate of false claims per minute is higher.)

Read on for the entire list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-or-misleading-claims/?utm_term=.831060b17cfc

The rate of questionable statements is not surprising from a guy who lies about everything. What also won't be surprising is that his cult followers will believe the lies and reject the truth.

 

[Hijinx]

Read on for the entire list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-or-misleading-claims/?utm_term=.831060b17cfc

The rate of questionable statements is not surprising from a guy who lies about everything. What also won't be surprising is that his cult followers will believe the lies and reject the truth.

Again from the Washington Post. You need to find a credible source that isn't so 100% biased.
You actually read their crap?
You must have absolutely nothing better to do.

 

[Gilligan]

The rate of questionable statements is not surprising from a guy who lies about everything..

Speaking of lying about everything, you ever go back to the thread about paying property taxes early and correct your lies?

 

[baxter]

that paper isn't worth toilet paper. I wouldn't use it to start a fire

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm trying to think when the WashPo became so blatantly one-sided. I remember always they endorsed only Democrat candidates - it was rare to see a Republican on their endorsement list, whether national, state, or local. That's usually your first clue that you're dealing with biased media. I didn't read WashPo during Reagan because I didn't live in the region and it meant nothing to me, but I remember well the way they used to routinely bust on Daddy Bush for the dumbest things and make headlines that sounded really ominous, but didn't match the story. I also remember the butt kissing fest that was the Clinton years, especially during the impeachment hearings. My ex-husband used to get a subscription to it during Dubya and I recall being infuriated with the one-sided biased "reporting".

Has it always been biased or is that a fairly recent phenomenon, as in in the last 30 +- years?

 

[Starman]

All newspapers are biased. Former CIA director Colby left that fact with us as part of his legacy.

It’s just that you don’t characterize it as bias when you agree with an article so your view is that only ones that lean left are biased.

 

[Bird Dog]

All newspapers are biased. Former CIA director Colby left that fact with us as part of his legacy.

It’s just that you don’t characterize it as bias when you agree with an article so your view is that only ones that lean left are biased.

WAPO is not biased, they are totally partisan......except for a couple of syndicated op-ed cloumists. Have been since Nixon...

They can’t even print an article in favor of Governor Hogan, one of the most popular Governors of all time.l

 

[Starman]

WAPO is not biased, they are totally partisan......except for a couple of syndicated op-ed cloumists. Have been since Nixon...

They can’t even print an article in favor of Governor Hogan, one of the most popular Governors of all time.l

WAPO endorsed Hogan.

 

[vraiblonde]

All newspapers are biased. Former CIA director Colby left that fact with us as part of his legacy.

It’s just that you don’t characterize it as bias when you agree with an article so your view is that only ones that lean left are biased.

Actually, I look for balance and fairness in my news sources. I don't expect them to take one party's side all the time; I do expect them to give me the news free of editorializing.

 

[Bird Dog]

WAPO endorsed Hogan.

They endorsed him as the Republican candidate for governor, not governor. Wrong again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...87e92bc997b_story.html?utm_term=.6d2c17d6ddc2

Neither Mr. Brown, who has proffered modest but sketchily funded proposals, nor Mr. Hogan, whose glib economic plan amounts to mush, seems a good bet to inspire Maryland voters. Still, Mr. Brown is the more knowledgeable man and the more nimble politician; he would make a better governor. His record in public office is hardly unblemished — the disastrous rollout of the state’s health-care exchange was mismanaged under his watch. But Mr. Brown’s breadth of experience, coupled with the lack of credibility at the heart of Mr. Hogan’s program, inform our endorsement. So does Mr. Brown’s more substantial record of achievement in public life.


How does being wrong and not answering direct questions feel......

 

[Starman]

They endorsed him as the Republican candidate for governor, not governor. Wrong again

A distinction without a difference. They didn't like any of the Democrat party candidates.

 

[Bird Dog]

A distinction without a difference. They didn't like any of the Democrat party candidates.

Neither Mr. Brown, who has proffered modest but sketchily funded proposals, nor Mr. Hogan, whose glib economic plan amounts to mush, seems a good bet to inspire Maryland voters. Still, Mr. Brown is the more knowledgeable man and the more nimble politician; he would make a better governor. His record in public office is hardly unblemished — the disastrous rollout of the state’s health-care exchange was mismanaged under his watch. But Mr. Brown’s breadth of experience, coupled with the lack of credibility at the heart of Mr. Hogan’s program, inform our endorsement. So does Mr. Brown’s more substantial record of achievement in public life.

Wrong again...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...87e92bc997b_story.html?utm_term=.6d2c17d6ddc2

 

[Starman]

Actually, I look for balance and fairness in my news sources. I don't expect them to take one party's side all the time; I do expect them to give me the news free of editorializing.

What you think you're looking for and what your takeaway is are two different things.

 

[Starman]

Neither Mr. Brown, who has proffered modest but sketchily funded proposals, nor Mr. Hogan, whose glib economic plan amounts to mush, seems a good bet to inspire Maryland voters. Still, Mr. Brown is the more knowledgeable man and the more nimble politician; he would make a better governor. His record in public office is hardly unblemished — the disastrous rollout of the state’s health-care exchange was mismanaged under his watch. But Mr. Brown’s breadth of experience, coupled with the lack of credibility at the heart of Mr. Hogan’s program, inform our endorsement. So does Mr. Brown’s more substantial record of achievement in public life.

Wrong again...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...87e92bc997b_story.html?utm_term=.6d2c17d6ddc2

Fair enough.

 

[vraiblonde]

WAPO endorsed Hogan.

Not in the general election. In the primary they had to choose a Republican to endorse.

Duh.

 

[vraiblonde]

What you think you're looking for and what your takeaway is are two different things.

Okay, well, you certainly know me better than I know myself, Mr. Stranger on the Internet.

 

[Starman]

Okay, well, you certainly know me better than I know myself, Mr. Stranger on the Internet.

Well, you still credit “Daddy” with the current bull market run. So, yea, I think I know all I need to know about your ability to avoid confirmation bias in your news consumption.

 

[littlelady]

Well, you still credit “Daddy” with the current bull market run. So, yea, I think I know all I need to know about your ability to avoid confirmation bias in your news consumption.

It was already a ‘bull’ market, and the election of Trump and his policies made it more of a ‘bull’ market. And, the stock market is at its highest points ever in history; that is not a coincidence. As far as your ‘bull’ you know, that is another story; so to speak.

 

[Hijinx]

Neither Mr. Brown, who has proffered modest but sketchily funded proposals, nor Mr. Hogan, whose glib economic plan amounts to mush, seems a good bet to inspire Maryland voters. Still, Mr. Brown is the more knowledgeable man and the more nimble politician; he would make a better governor. His record in public office is hardly unblemished — the disastrous rollout of the state’s health-care exchange was mismanaged under his watch. But Mr. Brown’s breadth of experience, coupled with the lack of credibility at the heart of Mr. Hogan’s program, inform our endorsement. So does Mr. Brown’s more substantial record of achievement in public life.

Wrong again...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...87e92bc997b_story.html?utm_term=.6d2c17d6ddc2

It's the Washington Post. No one expects them to endorse a Republican.
They are so biased toward the left I am surprised the building isn't leaning like the building in Pisa.

We have a pretty good idea what Brown will do---raise taxes. It's in their genes.

 

[Starman]

It was already a ‘bull’ market, and the election of Trump and his policies made it more of a ‘bull’ market. And, the stock market is at its highest points ever in history; that is not a coincidence. As far as your ‘bull’ you know, that is another story; so to speak.

Go away.