Checked the site. A many of Trump's statements have a grain of truth, but are hyperbolic. He does it to mobilize people, which is a good thing, but it downgrades his truth-o-meter values. For example, Trump says real unemployment is 26%. Politfact says it's 10% or at most 15%. Still a lot higher than official figures of 5%.

Well, maybe he's "exaggerating" what he's going to do in the Middle East, or with illegal immigration, since he seems to be a tough hardliner on that to the point of ridiculity. Don't kid yourself, he's saying not to believe what the "phony" figures are, and mostly giving out his own estimates here (he's done some ghost attributing before like that.), which are way higher than even liberal estimates. Either way, he's attributing sources to his "exaggerations".

With exaggerating, it's much harder to see it as a lie when the figures are unreally high (if he said 200% or something). And unreally high figures get detail if they are (claimed to be) true. All the "Pants on fire" are rightfully there in my opinion, and even if all the "false" ones were just "exaggerations", Trump would still have way more with "pants on fire" than Sanders' "false"+"pants on fire".

Some of the Politfact claims are simply untrue. They use a number of newspaper headlines to prove that illegal immigration didn't become a bigger talking point since Trump candidacy. It's a weak argument and obviously untrue.

Be specific (also, I don't see what's wrong with that way, it's not perfect, but no way of measuring truly is).

Why would Trump risk so much for a topic he allegedly doesn't really care about?

You know what happened in Brazil? The president, D. Roussef, basically got so corrupt that the two government houses even have folk who were previously tried for murder. He gets his pals out of gaol, stops fining businesses for incompetency (+, though), lowers corporate tax rates (+), stops the search for tax loopholes, so on. It's a + to his business, while he in the meantime, gets loads of money and influence, embezzling, so on. Are you really asking the frain "why would someone want to be leader of their country?". Some held by very strict mores wouldn't want to be, but most would love to be.

I am not 'for war' or 'against war'. At the moment, ISIS is becoming too dangerous to exist. If the Russians kill it, fine. But it needs to be taken out. Responding to immediate threats to safety doesn't mean world police. Attacking Saddam, who was not a threat, was an act of a world police.

How can you say not you're not for-war, or that this is not "world police"? Have you thought about how many innocent lives America has killed against how many Mashriq has?

What chooses "immediate threats to safety"? Why isn't West-Provinz an immediate threat to safety? Why isn't America an immediate threat to safety?

If you want to find the best or least bad, you have to look elsewhere, because all the candidates are just as bad regarding the NSA.

That's what I was saying to you.

You have to be careful how you change the law, but I can absolutely understand Trump's view. The media has questioned his disavowal of the KKK, which was supposedly not energetic enough, but they never make such stories about Bernie and Hillary not condemning BLM. The media brands Trump and his supporters as violent maniacs as they respond to 'protester' violence, but they never tell the other side of the story. These professional thugs hit Trump supporters, police officers, block ambulances and so on. The end result of this one-sidedness is that people see Trump as a monster, and these violent protesters as freedom fighters. People don't get a balanced picture. It's very hard to prove malice in such cases, but it's clearly there.

I don't care if Trump is a crybaby, he doesn't get to illegalise everything that makes him cry. And this is BR, they don't do post things lightly like that.

You are obviously minimizing the issue. Not just Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Olof Palme, but also Kennedy was assaassinated.

The 1961 and 1981 are not today (and both of these are presidents - not candidates). I thought of some other more important assassinations, but didn't accept anything before 1930. Not even the most extremist Sanders or Trump supporters would be willing to kill their antichrists (punch them, yes, but not kill).

You know, Marco Rubio, less than a week before the campaign, the Washington campaign team was sent (highly likely from himself) some white powder. It was soon analysed to be not toxic, nor a drug, but he implified that his team was in a great hazard. Living through assassination generally grows support, and that week he was desperate (for example, making an argument of Trump's small "hands").

It's total nonsense to say that it couldn't happen, especially against a controversial candidate like Trump.

Trump is mostly controversial since he's, what best sums up to, rude and unpretentious. In my opinion, he has the best breath of any candidate in the election, but his breath should not matter. His outlooks are disliked, but are they much different from the other Republicans? Border security and war in the middle east, check. Other things, not talked about much, but most are also are typic Republican.

The reason why more US presidents haven't been killed is because the security is good and aggressive enough.

If security is aggressive, it's not security anymore. Now, yes, they've spent loads on guards, and this has helped answer the problem, so what are you actually whining about since the problem is very minimal?

This is exactly why 'protesters' throwing tomatoes should be knocked out.

Trump does not have tomato allergies.

In that case, the media should also brand Hillary and Bernie racists, as neither of them condemn BLM.

KKK: Advocates for Protestant whiteskin supremacy.
BLM: Advocates against racial inequality, especially in the legal and police system.

Now these are both just policies, but think of them as minimum standards for the members. All in the KKK are Protestant whiteskin supremacists, while there's hardly anyone who believes in blackskin supremacy in the BLM. They are definitely folk who advocate policies like affirmative action in the BLM, but that's not for blackskins only; and it's hardly white-skin.

Throwing a tomato or hitting someone has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nor is shouting so loud that others cannot speak in the spirit of freedom of speech. And them entering Trump's private event may not be illegal, but they certainly have no business there.

Hitting someone is illegal, and I'm all for restraining them, not more violently than needed, if they hit someone. But throwing a tomato and shouting are the purest forms of free speech, why free speech was given as a right: not to give a monopoly on opinions and voices, and to be allowed to criticise or insult without persecution, but to protest. If Trump doesn't want to deal with these problems, that's ok, just make it a private talk, then, but if this is inviting anyone, than everyone has business there.

If Trump opponents want to voice their oppositon, they can do it somewhere else. They don't need to disrupt his rallies.

"Argue against me when I'm not listening". You know what voicing a different opinion or belief is, to someone who has a different opinion or belief? A debate; to try and, if not make it two-sided, then make it one-sided on two sides.

If Trump wants, get a interphone or do a private talk, but on a public talk, expect and prepare. Protest is exercising freedom of speech to criticise and say "shut up" to, if needed. This is not self-contradictory - I wouldn't mind much if governments did only this. I think you might like Rafael Correa, he's kind of like Trump in mannerism. Correa, the president of Ecuador, he's very for the free speech. He holds a great public forum every week, taking frains. He's very active on Twitter, and if someone insults him without argument, he hounds them, argument bombs them. He's also quite irked at newspapers that write bad things about him, but he's not for ridiculously big libel laws (it's punished with a fine and having to write a righting, noting that they were wrong) or censorship; sometimes he talks bad about them, shows some bad or misleading articles they wrote, or maybe writes an open letter, and a few times, he's ripped physic newspapers up. He sometimes lobbies, but he doesn't block them. Now, that's too restrictive for me, but in relativity, he's great. Talks with his folk in an amusing and common way. If they insult him, he'll insult them worse.

The media tries to display Trump as a racist and a misogynist and an overall radical guy. They are trying to get his ratings down. It is true that Trump knows how to play the media and get his ratings up, but that doesn't mean the media have tried to help him. They tried to destroy him.

Media, of all organisations, are not dumb, not in marketing. They're not idiots, they've got statistic departments, they're good at demography and advertising, and if they really wanted Trump to not win, would stop talking to him, let him be another grumpy politic nerd.

The context the media is conveying is that BLM are oppressed by racism and have a legitimate cause to protest, more legitimate than the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church for example. The media doesn't show footage of these thugs hitting the police, blocking ambulances, shooting with guns etc. It is very different to hit someone who hits the police and blocks ambulances than someone who simply enters a room and shows a sign. A very different context.

First,

BLM = idiots rising from legitimate persecution
KKK = supremacists
Westboro = for mixing theode and faith

Second, general bias is not what I was asking about; I don't see you actually showing how these quotes were out of context:

"Folk aren't willing to fight enough today."
"If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

Another example. The media makes a big deal about Trump wanting to kill free speech because he wants to change the libel laws. How much do you hear, however, about this:
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/
Obama's efforts to control the media are worst since Nixon. Why isn't this frontpage news everyday, like Trump's libel laws are? It's dishonest and misleading.

Read up the Borderless Reporters report on America, it pretty much agrees that Obama has upped the surveillance and censorship war. USA has been listed as an Internet foe since 2014. And I don't disagree, Obama was bad. The Democrats are bad. But they're less worse. And furthermore, Trump doesn't want to repeal this, he wants to add on to the hellstack.

Because people have a choice. Nobody can prohibit you from starting a blog, but people can deny you the right to open a TV channel in many countries. Plus, you need an expensvie TV studio, you need to broadcast a minimum amount of stuff etc. All this hassle goes away with your personal blog.

They very much can stop a blog, and it's been done before in America, but that's beside my point. A newspaper does not take much effort, and you can self-publish, and profit in what is a narrow market. In the internet, starting costs are usually easier, but the want for politic blogs and news sources on the internet is basically oversaturated - noone wants them, even the folk who love alternative news. It's much harder to get popularity, and popularity is the main thing you're trying to get, here. Spread the word.

The same disclaimer can be put with anybody. Obama, for instance. He already has a proven track record of censoring the mainstream media. Harder to do with the social media, however.

Still, why did you put it?

The idea that women are superior to men it's called Misandry, it's often misinterpreted as feminism, but it's not.

The problem is, misandrists or whatever (manhaters) call themselves feminists, too.

Police and security agencies shouldn't be the ones in charge of controlling extremism and anti-semitism. It's degrading to say it's their fault, they do their best to avoid terrorist attacks, but you can't blame those on them.

It's not supposed to be your traffic cop or town police to stop it, it's supposed to be internal security agencies like MI5, GDIS.

Anti-semitism is however not a problem France created, but Israel and their policies

Arab and Jew hate in Europe has been about for a very long time (also, of course, Hebrew and Yidds are Semitic themselves).

The truth is that Western influence just made the opposit lol... Islam was a very peaceful religion until we messed up the region for more then 200 years.

No. The Islamic theocracy was not peaceful; from the start of the first khalifa theocracy, Muslims were violent.

Christianism has been far worse since it's creation then Islamism

What does it matter what Christianity has been in the past? It's not like that in 2016. Are we going to hold Islam to a medieval Christian standard now and be happy with it?

You know how Christianity got peaceful? By ignoring parts of the Book. For example, Numbers 5 give instructions to what priests are supposed to do in order to induce abortion for unfaithful wives, all on husband's asking. Yet Christians are against abortion. Another example: Leviticus 14, as part of their job, priests must clean up moulds. Ask Father Franciscus to do that.

You don't kill your neighbour if they worked on a Sunday, but if you were a true Christian, you would.

Islamic hardline theocracy wasn't widespread and strong. Most great islamic khalifates had to keep christians under their empires without revolting. It was actually good for them, as christian payed more taxes. How could the Ottoman Empire keep greece for many hundred years without mass revolts if they threated them as ISIS threat their christians?

Anti-semitism was very widespread in Europe indeed, but after WW2 it did greatly fall. It gained a strong force on the arab communities because of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

JUST QUIT THIS DEBATE


ITS TOO LONG, DONT READ!!!

Islamic hardline theocracy wasn't widespread and strong. Most great islamic khalifates had to keep christians under their empires without revolting.

What does this mean? An Islamic Caliphate is inherently a hardline and radical political ideology since it is an authoritarian theocracy. The Jizya was an efficient way to keep oppressed minority and religious groups poor and weak, effectively preventing revolt. The Islamic Caliphates also took advantage of the fact that many regions under their control were decentralized or were composed of city-states or small nations that had no real effective federation or alliance to resist occupation.

It was very widespread and strong. They even fought and slayed China in Talas Battle. However, they were less violent and more accepting than Christian countries of the times were, definitely.

If I remember correctly, Greece's interior was a lawless mess of bandits and warlords for a long time. I imagine these people had the 1400s version of F the police. And there was a big number of revolts against them too. And the Turkish Empire was very violent, that's the point of being a empire.

Me: Genghis! What does the scouters say about this threads cancer levels?

Genghisenpai: It's over 9000!

Me: Yep, seems about right.

Neh, the turkish empire was violent, but must contries were anyway against it's citizens at the time. So it wasn't the kind of unsupportable violent countries.

The Jizya was an efficient way to keep oppressed minority and religious groups poor and weak, effectively preventing revolt.

Not really, many rich people accepted to pay for it, just to keep their commerce (venetian merchants as an example). Whereas poor people were forced to conversion because they couldn't afford it.

Neh, the turkish empire was violent, but must contries were anyway against it's citizens at the time. So it wasn't the kind of unsupportable violent countries.

It went all the way to Budapest through conquest, but after the Second Peç Battle, Turkey was constantly ganged up on by the other Euroopean powers, even Safavid Iran co-ordinated with the European Christian league. Don't deny that the last khalifa was not violent, this was the government that did the Armenian genocide.

Yea, it become fucked up at the end, but it does happen a lot to declining countries.

Be specific (also, I don't see what's wrong with that way, it's not perfect, but no way of measuring truly is).

Because of Trump, we talk about the subject of radical Islamic terrorism every day, either directly or through addressing his person and his remarks about Muslims. After saying what he said, he got record numbers of 'incoming' from all the phony people and media who call everyone racist for criticizing Islam. Before Trump, Jeb Bush promised not to use the term 'anchor baby', but after Trumps surge in polls, he started using it.

Other than that, the spin of the discussion is entirely different now. At the moment, the media is starting to see Trump as the one with real solutions to radical Islamic terrorism (as opposed to Hillary or Bernie). Trump tells that Muslim countries don't respect us, and that needs to change. If it came to any other candidate, you would hear much softer talk. So yes, Trump has made the topic a big one, and changed the tone of it entirely.

Are you really asking the frain "why would someone want to be leader of their country?".

Are you really saying every other candidate is an angel? Why all this suspicion about Trump, but not about anyone else?

How can you say not you're not for-war, or that this is not "world police"? Have you thought about how many innocent lives America has killed against how many Mashriq has?

What chooses "immediate threats to safety"? Why isn't West-Provinz an immediate threat to safety? Why isn't America an immediate threat to safety?

First of all, Trump is not responsible for what GWB did. He cannot change it, ok? Secondly, innocent civilians are bound to die when ISIS is defeated, regardless if the US defeats it or Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc. Third, everybody agrees that ISIS needs to go, the US would not be acting without legitimacy. ISIS is an immediate threat to lots of countries.

That's what I was saying to you.

No. You were saying that Hillary was better than Trump or Obama, after which I corrected you.

I don't care if Trump is a crybaby, he doesn't get to illegalise everything that makes him cry. And this is BR, they don't do post things lightly like that.

If the media was constantly criticizing BLM and refusing to say anything negative about Trump, you would want to change that, wouldn't you. Ah, but then you are a crybaby.

The 1961 and 1981 are not today (and both of these are presidents - not candidates). I thought of some other more important assassinations, but didn't accept anything before 1930. Not even the most extremist Sanders or Trump supporters would be willing to kill their antichrists (punch them, yes, but not kill).

Trump is a controversial candidate that has very high likelihood of becoming president. Now would be the time to assassinate him, before he becomes president. It's unbelievable how you continue to minimize the issue. And don't compare him to Marco Rubio. Nobody cares about Rubio or his positions.

Trump is mostly controversial since he's, what best sums up to, rude and unpretentious.

Not by a long shot. If that were all, he would be laughed at. The real reason why lots of people hate him is that he is about to change the status quo big time. He is changing the discussion about radical Islamic terrorism, political correctness, illegal immigration to one that does not avoid the meat of the issue. He threatens the power of the GOP establishment and the mainstream media, and that's why they are both trying to make as many people as possible hate him with passion, and perhaps do something violent.

If security is aggressive, it's not security anymore. Now, yes, they've spent loads on guards, and this has helped answer the problem, so what are you actually whining about since the problem is very minimal?

If a violent person like DiMassimo gets so close to Trump that he can actually touch him, then security has not been good enough. And then the media makes him look like a hero. Totally not encouraging more of the same.

Trump does not have tomato allergies.

If the tomato has a stone in it, and it hits Trump in the right place, it could hospitalize or even kill him.

KKK: Advocates for Protestant whiteskin supremacy.
BLM: Advocates against racial inequality, especially in the legal and police system.

Now these are both just policies, but think of them as minimum standards for the members. All in the KKK are Protestant whiteskin supremacists, while there's hardly anyone who believes in blackskin supremacy in the BLM. They are definitely folk who advocate policies like affirmative action in the BLM, but that's not for blackskins only; and it's hardly white-skin.

LOL. So if the KKK changed its rhetoric to "there is a genocide against whites, we need to make sure that whites don't become a minority in their own countries" then they would have a legitimate cause? Then it would not be OK to say that they are supremacists?

Hitting someone is illegal, and I'm all for restraining them, not more violently than needed, if they hit someone. But throwing a tomato and shouting are the purest forms of free speech, why free speech was given as a right: not to give a monopoly on opinions and voices, and to be allowed to criticise or insult without persecution, but to protest. If Trump doesn't want to deal with these problems, that's ok, just make it a private talk, then, but if this is inviting anyone, than everyone has business there.

If you think that throwing tomatoes and telling lies about others is covered by free speech, then you need to educate yourself what free speech actually means. The Trump rallies are private events, and Trump cannot know in advance who is a thug and who is a good guy.

"Argue against me when I'm not listening". You know what voicing a different opinion or belief is, to someone who has a different opinion or belief? A debate; to try and, if not make it two-sided, then make it one-sided on two sides.

Haha, there is no 'argument' that BLM thugs make. They call Trump a racist, that's all. And then they shout so that others cannot hear what Trump says. Hardly an argument either. If you want to hear counterarguments to Trump, you can listen to Bernie or Hillary. BLM thugs can make their own private even and tell that Trump is a racist if they want, that's their freedom of speech. But blocking ambulances is not what freedom of speech means. They are very bad people and people have a right to be angry at them.

Media, of all organisations, are not dumb, not in marketing. They're not idiots, they've got statistic departments, they're good at demography and advertising, and if they really wanted Trump to not win, would stop talking to him, let him be another grumpy politic nerd.

So it's all a conspiracy. The media are conspiring to make Trump president!

Second, general bias is not what I was asking about; I don't see you actually showing how these quotes were out of context:

"Folk aren't willing to fight enough today."
"If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

What the media does, is this:
"Folk aren't willing to fight enough today... knock the hell out of them."
See? They omit the tomato part, implying that Trump is encouraging to knock out every protester, not just the ones trying to do something physical and potentially dangerous.

Read up the Borderless Reporters report on America, it pretty much agrees that Obama has upped the surveillance and censorship war. USA has been listed as an Internet foe since 2014. And I don't disagree, Obama was bad. The Democrats are bad. But they're less worse. And furthermore, Trump doesn't want to repeal this, he wants to add on to the hellstack.

So... Obama is worst since Nixon. It's hard to be worse than this, but you just assume that obviously Trump will be worse. And you don't really care if the media reports on it, it's fine if they just brand Trump the evil guy, racist, control-freak etc.

It's much harder to get popularity, and popularity is the main thing you're trying to get, here. Spread the word.

Of course it's hard, because the social media market is very competitive. That's the point. There is little competition in the mainstream media. They agree on everything and report the same news or lies.

What? Over 9000?