https://www.veryfinepeople.info/
Literally a hoax. He explicitly condemned them in the same sentence. You have been gaslit and are confident about it without having checked the basic facts.
Literally a hoax. He explicitly condemned them in the same sentence. You have been gaslit and are confident about it without having checked the basic facts.
Then, several days later in the second interview[2] on August 15th that you linked to, he equates the violent white nationalists that murdered someone with what he calls the "alt-left", the purported group that the murder victim belonged to, saying that he thinks there is blame on both sides. After asking for further clarification, he says that there were fine people on both sides. Only after further questioning, and in a separate statement, does he condemn white supremacists.
People were criticizing him for his initial equivocation on August 12th, comparing the white supremacists who murdered a person to the victims of their violence, and the fact that he didn't name or condemn white supremacists. In fact, when journalists asked him to condemn them, he walked away from the interview. He refused to differentiate between the two.
Then, on August 15th, he defends his initial comments through his continued equivocations in the second interview.
It isn't a hoax to criticize inappropriate equivocations, especially when it took him 4 days to muster out a condemnation, but still only after doubling down on the equivocations.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/12/tr...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-lef...
Are there evidence-based ratings for different publications? And is that the kind of thing that could be done at all objectively? If not objectively, at least methodically?
But once you realize that every major news org seems perfectly willing to gaslight you fundamentally, you start to doubt basically everything you read.
If this one 'fact' about trump condemning nazis is so obviously a false story, how many other false stories are there?
The problem with this understanding is that it doesn't help you learn the truth, it just lets you understand that everyone is lying to you, and if you don't put in the exhausting work to find more information (assuming any is available) about every story you will be lied to with impunity.
When you offload the process of interpreting events to someone else, you lose the ability to tell truth from lies. When those people are so confident in their lying to do it on things like this, how many other things have they lied about?
It's a sad realization about the world.
Clever of you to only link to the second interview, although it does come across as a touch disingenuous.
When it comes to fact checker bias, PolitiFact is a good example to look at because they publish numbers on all the politicians. If you look at both left and right wing politicians, you'll see that they say plenty of inaccurate things. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, Biden, all say inaccurate or untrue things to the order of 20 - 45% of checked statements.
Trump is in a category all his own. 72% of his checked statements are inaccurate.
Of course you should subject those numbers to scrutiny. Certainly there is sample bias in what statements get checked. But it is easy to find many, many Trump statements in which he makes statements that are so verifiably untrue that it becomes easy to conclude that he has little interest in providing evidence for his opinions. This graduates him from garden variety bias into active malfeasance.
I think it's important to recognize bias and fight it, but in the end, the mainstream media at least holds itself to a factual standard, as do mainstream politicians on both sides. Trump is very, very different. He himself represents nothing more than a war on factuality itself and a disdain for consensus or evidence of any kind.
No, unfortunately. And just as unfortunately, when you try to communicate why someone on "the other side" might have decent reasons for feeling the way they do, you are seen as an enemy. Alas this is human nature and not likely to change.
Calling this evidence of 'racism' and 'fascism' is just pathetic.
He was echoing Wallace in his usual semi-coherent manner; Wallace used the term "stand down"