Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

President to make announcement on border shutdown tomorrow

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It is my understanding Pelosi crafted her response before Trumps announcement...

    ?


    • #17
      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      It is my understanding Pelosi crafted her response before Trumps announcement...
      I'm sure she did and that it took her less than three minutes.

      But NOW we have a NEW development.

      We have Nancy offering SOMETHING !

      Finally.

      It's as dumb as nancy herself, but did we expect something different from nancy ???

      Of course not..

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a final legislative offer to President Trump this morning : the border wall will be funded and built in exchange for passing a bill banning the ownership and use of all firearms in the United States by private citizens. Pelosis edict sent shockwaves through Washington.

      https://bebest.website/wall4guns/?fb...7GoiMoNbZ8cUTs

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Disclaimer: The above website clearly states - "Information you probably shouldn't trust to be best"

      At least we have ONE honest website out there !!! : )

      ?


      • #18
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        I'm sure she did and that it took her less than three minutes.

        But NOW we have a NEW development.

        We have Nancy offering SOMETHING !

        Finally.

        It's as dumb as nancy herself, but did we expect something different from nancy ???

        Of course not..

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a final legislative offer to President Trump this morning : the border wall will be funded and built in exchange for passing a bill banning the ownership and use of all firearms in the United States by private citizens. Pelosis edict sent shockwaves through Washington.

        https://bebest.website/wall4guns/?fb...7GoiMoNbZ8cUTs

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Disclaimer: The above website clearly states - "Information you probably shouldn't trust to be best"

        At least we have ONE honest website out there !!! : )
        I hope you are smart enough to know that's a joke. If not check this out https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/na...-wall-gun-ban/

        ?


        • #19
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          I hope you are smart enough to know that's a joke. If not check this out https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/na...-wall-gun-ban/
          Oh yeah !

          Thanks for helping me out . . . I forgot I wrote that disclaimer...

          Anyways, this brings up another topic in a way.

          Snopes has discredited itself - quite awhile ago...

          Still, it seems that "fact checking" ...

          "Fact checking" the new trend.

          But no one has to check the "fact checkers" ??

          After-all, they're checking "facts" and making sure we're getting all "the facts."

          Or so we're told.

          Do these "fact checkers" need fact checked ?

          Perhaps they DO !

          They've proven time and again to have a sick obsession & hatred for the current president.

          They've shown themselves to be fools because of this.

          ... might they bend "
          the facts" a bit ... ?

          "
          Oh no, they wouldn't !!!"...

          Mmmm Hmmmm...........


          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Some degree of fact-checking is reasonable, if it's applied equally to leaders of both political parties, but not when it becomes the entire story.

          Before President Trump even uttered a word, the fact-checkers were lined up, ready to provide real-time rebuttals to every word Trump uttered.

          But who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

          Why are we supposed to believe CNN or MSNBC and their supposed fact-checkers?

          These are the same media organizations that ignored the blatant lies about the Benghazi video or "hands up, don't shoot."

          They refused to fact-check "if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them."

          They doctored George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

          There are myriad stories of fake news, enough for President Trump to create a top-ten list and give an award for the worst of the stories. Even then, the Washington Post couldn't resist "Fact-checking President Trump's Fake News Awards." What happens when even fact-checking is fake news?

          Let's look at a few of many examples.

          CNN tweeted after Trump's address, "Fact check: President Trump misleadingly claims drugs will kill more Americans than the Vietnam War." Time to fact-check the fact-checkers.

          According to the National Archives, there were "58,220 US military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War." The Centers for Disease Control reports approximately 70,000 deaths in 2017 in the U.S. from drug overdoses. The Vietnam War is said to have lasted from 1955 to 1975, or 20 years.

          This translates to an annualized 3,000 deaths per year in Viet Nam, less than 5 percent of the number of drug overdose deaths per year.

          Who is misleading? Obviously, CNN reporters are unable to perform simple research or do basic arithmetic.

          If the fact-checkers can't catch Trump lying, as they hope to do, they will claim he is "misleading."

          The Washington Post actually published this on its website: "266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years: The number is right but misleading."

          Wow Trump was actually right. Imagine that.

          The Washington Post's beef is that "[t]he quarter million arrests cover all types of offenses, including illegal entry or reentry." So what? Trump said "aliens arrested." He didn't specify why they were arrested. How is that misleading?

          Is not "illegal entry or reentry" a crime? Shouldn't those who commit such crimes be arrested and deported? Perhaps if such crimes were handled according to the rule of law, Kate Steinle and Officer Ronil Singh would still be with their families.

          When "misleading" doesn't cut it for the fact-checkers, they step in a big steaming pile of fake news, inadvertently making Trump's case for him. Here are two examples of this.

          When President Trump claimed that one in three women are sexually assaulted on their trek through Mexico, CBS, rather than saying Trump was overstating and exaggerating, instead confirmed what he said, and then some. They cited Amnesty International data showing that 60 to 80 percent of women were being raped, bolstering Trump's assertion.

          CBS removed its tweet, as it was counterproductive to their fact-checking mission, but the internet remembers. Trump was right, and in their zeal to catch him in a fib, CBS actually confirmed the veracity of his claim.

          Lastly, everyone's favorite CNN stooge, Jim Acosta, stepped in it bigly on the southern border ahead of the president's visit. He tweeted a video of himself standing in front of a border wall in McAllen, Texas consisting of steel slats and noting that the "community is quite safe."

          Poor Jim isn't smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion: that having a border wall makes America safer. Even a wall that doesn't "run the entire length of the border" is still a deterrent to illegal crossings and the associated crime. In other words, the wall is working just as it's supposed to and as Trump asserts. The smartest "resistance reporter" in the room unintentionally made Trump's case.

          He also neglected to mention that the area where he was walking was obviously safe and secure ahead of the president's visit. Or that mischief and mayhem tend to occur under the cover of darkness, not in the middle of the day when he made his stroll.

          If he wanted to report honestly, he would pitch a tent where there is no fence or wall and live there for a week. The[n] he can decide if things are "quite safe."

          Why is President Trump the only person worthy of big media fact-checking? What about the numerous members of Congress or other Deep State operatives who spout off about Trump being a Nazi or a traitor? Where are the media fact-checkers to point out the absurdity of such statements?

          And who fact-checks the media?

          Their ombudsmen are supposed to do that, but how often does that happen? Why is fact-checking even necessary? Shouldn't the news be reported, letting viewers do their own fact-checking?

          The internet makes it easy to look up virtually anything, including previously contradictory statements from politicians who were for the border wall before they were against it.

          When the media fact-check only one person, and can't even do it accurately, their diminishing credibility and relevance take yet another hit.

          The obsessive hatred of President Trump confirms the "fake news" moniker that he has conferred upon them.


          https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._checkers.html

          ?


          • #20
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Oh yeah !

            Thanks for helping me out . . . I forgot I wrote that disclaimer...

            Anyways, this brings up another topic in a way.

            Snopes has discredited itself - quite awhile ago...

            Still, it seems that "fact checking" ...

            "Fact checking" the new trend.

            But no one has to check the "fact checkers" ??

            After-all, they're checking "facts" and making sure we're getting all "the facts."

            Or so we're told.

            Do these "fact checkers" need fact checked ?

            Perhaps they DO !

            They've proven time and again to have a sick obsession & hatred for the current president.

            They've shown themselves to be fools because of this.

            ... might they bend "
            the facts" a bit ... ?

            "
            Oh no, they wouldn't !!!"...

            Mmmm Hmmmm...........


            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Some degree of fact-checking is reasonable, if it's applied equally to leaders of both political parties, but not when it becomes the entire story.

            Before President Trump even uttered a word, the fact-checkers were lined up, ready to provide real-time rebuttals to every word Trump uttered.

            But who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

            Why are we supposed to believe CNN or MSNBC and their supposed fact-checkers?

            These are the same media organizations that ignored the blatant lies about the Benghazi video or "hands up, don't shoot."

            They refused to fact-check "if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them."

            They doctored George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

            There are myriad stories of fake news, enough for President Trump to create a top-ten list and give an award for the worst of the stories. Even then, the Washington Post couldn't resist "Fact-checking President Trump's Fake News Awards." What happens when even fact-checking is fake news?

            Let's look at a few of many examples.

            CNN tweeted after Trump's address, "Fact check: President Trump misleadingly claims drugs will kill more Americans than the Vietnam War." Time to fact-check the fact-checkers.

            According to the National Archives, there were "58,220 US military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War." The Centers for Disease Control reports approximately 70,000 deaths in 2017 in the U.S. from drug overdoses. The Vietnam War is said to have lasted from 1955 to 1975, or 20 years.

            This translates to an annualized 3,000 deaths per year in Viet Nam, less than 5 percent of the number of drug overdose deaths per year.

            Who is misleading? Obviously, CNN reporters are unable to perform simple research or do basic arithmetic.

            If the fact-checkers can't catch Trump lying, as they hope to do, they will claim he is "misleading."

            The Washington Post actually published this on its website: "266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years: The number is right but misleading."

            Wow Trump was actually right. Imagine that.

            The Washington Post's beef is that "[t]he quarter million arrests cover all types of offenses, including illegal entry or reentry." So what? Trump said "aliens arrested." He didn't specify why they were arrested. How is that misleading?

            Is not "illegal entry or reentry" a crime? Shouldn't those who commit such crimes be arrested and deported? Perhaps if such crimes were handled according to the rule of law, Kate Steinle and Officer Ronil Singh would still be with their families.

            When "misleading" doesn't cut it for the fact-checkers, they step in a big steaming pile of fake news, inadvertently making Trump's case for him. Here are two examples of this.

            When President Trump claimed that one in three women are sexually assaulted on their trek through Mexico, CBS, rather than saying Trump was overstating and exaggerating, instead confirmed what he said, and then some. They cited Amnesty International data showing that 60 to 80 percent of women were being raped, bolstering Trump's assertion.

            CBS removed its tweet, as it was counterproductive to their fact-checking mission, but the internet remembers. Trump was right, and in their zeal to catch him in a fib, CBS actually confirmed the veracity of his claim.

            Lastly, everyone's favorite CNN stooge, Jim Acosta, stepped in it bigly on the southern border ahead of the president's visit. He tweeted a video of himself standing in front of a border wall in McAllen, Texas consisting of steel slats and noting that the "community is quite safe."

            Poor Jim isn't smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion: that having a border wall makes America safer. Even a wall that doesn't "run the entire length of the border" is still a deterrent to illegal crossings and the associated crime. In other words, the wall is working just as it's supposed to and as Trump asserts. The smartest "resistance reporter" in the room unintentionally made Trump's case.

            He also neglected to mention that the area where he was walking was obviously safe and secure ahead of the president's visit. Or that mischief and mayhem tend to occur under the cover of darkness, not in the middle of the day when he made his stroll.

            If he wanted to report honestly, he would pitch a tent where there is no fence or wall and live there for a week. The[n] he can decide if things are "quite safe."

            Why is President Trump the only person worthy of big media fact-checking? What about the numerous members of Congress or other Deep State operatives who spout off about Trump being a Nazi or a traitor? Where are the media fact-checkers to point out the absurdity of such statements?

            And who fact-checks the media?

            Their ombudsmen are supposed to do that, but how often does that happen? Why is fact-checking even necessary? Shouldn't the news be reported, letting viewers do their own fact-checking?

            The internet makes it easy to look up virtually anything, including previously contradictory statements from politicians who were for the border wall before they were against it.

            When the media fact-check only one person, and can't even do it accurately, their diminishing credibility and relevance take yet another hit.

            The obsessive hatred of President Trump confirms the "fake news" moniker that he has conferred upon them.


            https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._checkers.html
            No comment. Have a Happy Martin Luther King day..

            ?


            • #21
              I really do not know if the President is this clever or Democrats are this ignorantly hateful...

              but

              didnt we just see Trumps largesse towards dreamers rejected by the Democrats? He REALLY got them to turn their backs on DACA that theyve been whining about for almost 2 years?

              ?


              • #22
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                I really do not know if the President is this clever or Democrats are this ignorantly hateful...

                but

                didnt we just see Trumps largesse towards dreamers rejected by the Democrats? He REALLY got them to turn their backs on DACA that theyve been whining about for almost 2 years?
                Nancy and Chuckie have proven themselves fools guided only by hate.

                Thanks to the assistance of the president.

                Hopefully the people of America will learn from this.

                ?


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Nancy and Chuckie have proven themselves fools guided only by hate.

                  Thanks to the assistance of the president.

                  Hopefully the people of America will learn from this.
                  If my memory serves me didn't Mitch promise to bring up DACA after the government was opened after the last shut down? I feel sorry for the poor workers who are saying how did I get in the middle of all this? My job has nothing to do with immigration.DACA the wall all these things could be bargained with the government open. Maybe we need all the key figures Nancy, Chuck and Ann Coulter to sit down and work this out. No need to include Don and Mitch they are irrelevant they are good little boys and will do what ever Ann tells them to do. She is going to be on with Bill Maher next week perhaps she will let us know when she plans to reopen the government.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    If my memory serves me didn't Mitch promise to bring up DACA after the government was opened after the last shut down? I feel sorry for the poor workers who are saying how did I get in the middle of all this? My job has nothing to do with immigration.DACA the wall all these things could be bargained with the government open. Maybe we need all the key figures Nancy, Chuck and Ann Coulter to sit down and work this out. No need to include Don and Mitch they are irrelevant they are good little boys and will do what ever Ann tells them to do. She is going to be on with Bill Maher next week perhaps she will let us know when she plans to reopen the government.
                    Rovers posts are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get !

                    I had no idea you had fantasies of Ann being such a strong power in the world !?!?!

                    Have to say, I didn't see THAT coming !

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Rovers posts are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get !

                      I had no idea you had fantasies of Ann being such a strong power in the world !?!?!

                      Have to say, I didn't see THAT coming !
                      There is no point trying to negotiate with Donald. He will agree to something and ten minutes later he will blow up the deal to the point where you have to start from scratch. My spy in the state department is one of the people working without pay, fortunately she has a husband who doesn't work in Trump's government.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by redrover View Post

                        There is no point trying to negotiate with Donald. He will agree to something and ten minutes later he will blow up the deal to the point where you have to start from scratch. My spy in the state department is one of the people working without pay, fortunately she has a husband who doesn't work in Trump's government.
                        so, their alternative is to hold Government workers hostage so they dont have to acquiesce.
                        ...while they party with lobbyists in Puerto Rico and try to take their family on world junkets...

                        do you realize how stupid your weak sauce excuse sounds?

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                          so, their alternative is to hold Government workers hostage so they dont have to acquiesce.
                          ...while they party with lobbyists in Puerto Rico and try to take their family on world junkets...

                          do you realize how stupid your weak sauce excuse sounds?
                          Where the hell did that come from?

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post

                            Where the hell did that come from?
                            Im happy to explain it to you, but youll have to stop drinking to 7 derogando i5.

                            let me know when youre ready...OR (because Im all about alternatives), you can read what you wrote in the quote above my statement and then read my statement in context and figure it out for yourself.

                            realizing as I do that context is not your strong suit...

                            ?

                            Working...
                            X