Showing posts with label Partial List of Trump's Debate Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Partial List of Trump's Debate Lies. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2020

Trump Lied So Much At The Debate, Looks Like We Have to Wait Another Day Or Two For A Complete Fact Check ! - Great Report From Business Insider - Update @ 3:30 I'm Fixing It So You Can Read It !

So, here's a little something to hold you over. Have to run up to the states again early...have a nice weekend, see ya in a few days.


 ~ From Reliable Sources  (Some snippets, also a link to the Masters Fact Checker and at the very end you can subscribe)

"Fewer interruptions, more lies


The very first sentence President Trump uttered at Thursday's debate was false. Moderator Kristen Welker invoked the "dangerous new phase" of the coronavirus and the 16,000 deaths that were recorded since the first debate. "So as you know," Trump responded, "2.2 million people, modeled out, were expected to die."


CNN's Daniel Dale flagged the comment and pointed out, "That was an estimate for *what would happen if no government or person in the US took any mitigation efforts at all.* An extreme-worst-case scenario." In other words, no one "expected" such an agonizing outcome. The AP called this out too: "This was his first line in the debate, and it is false. The U.S. death toll from the pandemic was not expected to be that high."


Fact-checkers won't have a complete count of all the dishonesty until Friday or Saturday, but "from a lying perspective, Trump is even worse tonight than in the first debate," Dale said after 45 minutes of debating.


What about Joe Biden? Well, "Biden was again imperfect from a fact check perspective," Dale said. "He made at least a few false, misleading, or lacking-in-context claims. Trump was, as usual, a serial liar." There's simply no equivalency between the two and never has been. Dale told Wolf Blitzer on CNN, "With Trump you're like 'I Love Lucy' at the chocolate factory. You just don't know which one to pick up."


 >> Check out all of the fact-checks at


 >> Earlier in the day, on Twitter, Jay Rosen hit on the "political method" behind all the smearing and lying: "Saturate your speech with things the establishment press can't verify. Maximize conflict with their evidentiary standards. Whichever way they react -- not covering, fact checking -- makes for grievances you can bring to market."


The conclusion


Trump "didn't set himself on fire like he did at the first debate," Jake Tapper said on CNN. And/but "I don't see anything that will change the trajectory of the race in a significant way."


Similarly, Judy Woodruff on PBS: "This was much closer to a real debate than what we saw the last time... A much more valuable debate for the American people than what we heard in the first debate."


Trump, at times, went full Fox


Oliver Darcy writes: "At times during the debate, Trump spoke the language of Fox News. This was particularly evident when he went after the 'phony' Mueller probe. While consumers of right-wing media probably ate up the moment, those who do not tune into Fox or talk radio might have had a hard time following along. Joshua Green put it well: 'Trump might as well be speaking Swahili -- no one but the most devoted Fox watcher can possibly follow what he's saying.'"



Biden v. the Fox narrative about him


"Biden's senile." "He's fading." "He's in hiding." That's been the message about the former VP from Fox's most popular talk shows. Yet every time Biden takes the stage in front of tens of millions of viewers, he blows up that narrative.


Earlier this month, in a phoner on Fox, Trump said "he's mentally gone." Sean Hannity fixated on a boring live shot of Biden's home to imply that the candidate is too weak to campaign. And Laura Ingraham said Wednesday night that "he's losing it." Yet Biden stood up straight and spoke straight to camera and rebutted Trump almost every minute. He had a couple of gaffes, like calling the Proud Boys the "Poor Boys," but nothing eye-popping that I heard. He countered the Fox narrative...


Did the Hunter Biden attack fizzle?


That's what Oliver Darcy thinks. He writes: "Fox has been in overdrive attacking Biden's son this week, but when Trump brought up the issue at the debate, his attack did not land. Biden instead turned the allegation of foreign business practices back on Trump, bringing up the Chinese bank account Trump had, according to a recent NYT report. As Tim Alberta tweeted, 'the Hunter/China issue fizzled without a memorable moment.' That said, expect this narrative to continue dominating right-wing media through the election..."



Wait, here's a gem from Business Insider: Priceless:


'Anything Less Than a Vote For Biden Is a Vote Against Democracy': Expensity's CEO Tells Us Why The Company Emailed 10 Million Customers Urging Them To Vote For Biden 


By, Tyler Sonnemaker - 10/23/20 


"Expensify's approximately 10 million customers received an email on Thursday evening from CEO David Barrett with the subject line "Protect democracy, vote for Biden."

"We are facing an unprecedented attack on the foundations of democracy itself. If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy," Barrett said in the email, adding that "a vote for Trump is to endorse voter suppression, it really is very basic."

The email went on to criticize the Trump administration's efforts to suppress voter turnout and its false claims about voter fraud. It urged Americans to vote for Biden on November 3.

"I wouldn't be sending this email if this election were just about 'normal issues' — taxes, legislative priorities, healthcare, etc.," Barrett wrote. "But it isn't. This election is a referendum on what limits, if any, we place on our elected leaders to govern us in a fair and representative way. This election will decide if widespread voter suppression is an acceptable governing tactic."

But while Barrett initially proposed the email, actually sending it was a mini democratic process.

He told Business Insider that several of Expensify's 130 or so employees provided input on the letter's content and that more than two-thirds, a "supermajority," ultimately voted to hit send.

"We've always been a very strongly values-driven organization, and we talk a lot about what we stand for, what we believe in, what we'll put our money and efforts behind," Barrett said.


"It might seem kind of, like, out of the blue, if you don't really know much about Expensify," he said, adding that the company has previously gotten involved in social issues such as subsidizing low-income families' groceries during the pandemic and engaging with local Black Lives Matter leaders in Portland, Oregon, where the company is based.

Barrett said that while there wasn't universal consensus on sending the letter, "the real world is messy and complicated."

"These are not radical ideas," he said, adding that it was important to take a stand on them nonetheless.

Expensify's decision to weigh in on the 2020 presidential race — and political and social issues more broadly — stands in stark contrast to some other tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, that have sought to limit internal discussion on hot-button issues. In a recent memo, the CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase declared an "apolitical culture" at the company and urged dissenters to leave, leading about 60 employees to do exactly that.

Barrett criticized Coinbase's approach as pretending to be apolitical while actually just supporting the status quo.

"If you are a member of a democratic society, you can't opt out of that. Choosing not to participate is also a choice — that is a political decision," he said. "If you are a company that chooses not to engage, that either means, one, our official company stance is that we like the status quo and want to keep it, or two is we don't like the status quo, but we're too cowardly to do anything about it."


Read the full email from Expensify CEO David Barrett below:

Subject: Protect democracy, vote for Biden.

I know you don't want to hear this from me. And I guarantee I don't want to say it. But we are facing an unprecedented attack on the foundations of democracy itself. If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy.

That's right, I'm saying a vote for Trump, a vote for a third-party candidate, or simply not voting at all — they're all the same, and they all mean:

"I care more about my favorite issue than democracy. I believe Trump winning is more important than democracy. I am comfortable standing aside and allowing democracy to be methodically dismantled, in plain sight."

If the polls are accurate, there's a roughly 50% chance that you agree Trump needs to go. You know what to do: show up on November 3rd and vote for Biden. Or even better, don't wait until then: vote today. Go to if you need help figuring out how.

The rest of this email is intended to address the concerns of those who disagree, and I'll try to take the most likely questions in turn:

Q: Why do you care so much about democracy?

Democracy is core to our business success, in a variety of ways. Internally, we are a famously "flat" organization — nobody reports to anyone else, and advancement is the result of meeting well defined criteria as judged by the vote of those who have already advanced. How we compensate each other is left up to a team vote as well. Even our external business model depends on individual employees "electing" to adopt Expensify as individuals, and then "campaigning" internally to get it adopted companywide. At every layer, democracy is our core competitive advantage — both as a company, and as a nation. But that advantage is only as strong as the clarity of our rules and the fairness of their application. Any attempt to disrupt the rules or apply them unfairly is a direct threat to the strength of our company, and the strength of our nation.

Q: What gives you the right to tell me what to do?

The first amendment. To be clear, you don't need to listen. But the first amendment exists to encourage people like you and me to find some way to talk about the issues that matter, set aside our differences, and find a common ground on which to collectively govern 331 million citizens. Yes democratic self-rule can be inconvenient. But a burden of democracy is that this is literally our job, so I'm asking all of us to take it seriously.

Q: But you're a company, shouldn't you remain neutral?

Expensify depends on a functioning society and economy; not many expense reports get filed during a civil war. As CEO of this business, it's my job to plot a course through any storm — and all evidence suggests that another 4 (or as Trump has hinted — 8, or more?) years of Trump leadership will damage our democracy to such an extent, I'm obligated on behalf of shareholders to take any action I can to avoid it. I am confident our democracy (and Expensify) can survive a Biden presidency. I can't say the same about Trump. It's truly as simple as that.

Q: Don't you think you're… exaggerating a bit?

I truly wish I was. I wouldn't be sending this email if this election were just about "normal issues" — taxes, legislative priorities, healthcare, etc. But it isn't. This election is a referendum on what limits, if any, we place on our elected leaders to govern us in a fair and representative way. This election will decide if widespread voter suppression is an acceptable governing tactic.

Q: Doesn't everyone suppress votes?

Not like Trump. This is the most heavily litigated election in history, with over 300 lawsuits rushing through the courts before election day. And in every case, Biden is pushing to enable voters while Trump is pushing to suppress them. The trend couldn't be more clear: Biden wants democracy, Trump does not. A vote for Trump is to endorse voter suppression, it really is very basic. This isn't about party politics: if Biden were advocating for half of the voter suppression that Trump is actively doing, then I'd be fighting against Biden, too. This is bigger than politics as usual: this is about the very foundation of our nation.

Q: Isn't Trump just trying to prevent voter fraud?

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, as overwhelmingly shown by data showcased by the White House itself. That data comes from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank counting every single known case of voter fraud since 1948, which adds up to only 1,290 distinct votes over 78 years. In 2016 alone there were 138 million votes. There is just no credible argument that voter fraud is significant, even based on Trump's own data.

Q: Isn't Biden just using more widespread voting to get elected?

Absolutely. This is the heart of the issue. Biden believes that enabling more people to vote will help him win. Biden wins by promoting democracy; Trump wins by suppressing it. A vote for Biden is a vote for democracy.

Q: So what if Trump gets elected by voter suppression, all's fair right?

Well that's what we're going to decide, on November 3rd. Do you want your elected official to win based on the merits of their ideas? Or based on the ruthlessness of their voter suppression? And if you're ok with "just a little suppression" — where do you draw the line?

Q: Why send me this when the polls say Biden is going to win?

The polls said Trump was going to lose last time, and he didn't. But even if the polls can be trusted, that might still not be enough. Trump has stated repeatedly he will only honor an election that he personally feels is fair. So much depending on his personal judgement is worrying, because he has rejected the overwhelming expert consensus that voter fraud has been negligible historically, and has also said he believes it would be impossible to lose a fair election. Accordingly, the only way to ensure a peaceful transition of power is to ensure this election is an overwhelming, undeniable landslide in favor of Biden. Any excuse to question the election is an opportunity for Trump to refuse to leave the White House, plunging this country into a Constitutional crisis bordering on civil war. No matter how slight that risk might be, the consequences of it happening would be so catastrophic to society and the economy, we need to do all we can to prevent it.

So one final plea. As a fellow citizen, I fully support and respect your Constitutional right to disagree — and as an avid supporter of democracy, I value that disagreement. Constructive, well-informed debate (hopefully using the most accurate, least biased news source available) is what makes this nation so exceptional.

But the Constitution is only as strong as the respect we give it. I'm asking you to cherish it close to your heart, and demand that those you elect do the same.

Founder and CEO of Expensify

PS: Agree or disagree? Reply to this email to share your thoughts with Concierge, or hit me up on Twitter @dbarrett to discuss!

PPS: Want to do even more? Support the National Popular Vote to make every vote count equally toward the presidential election, even if you aren't in one of the 12 states deciding this election.

PPPS: Are you annoyed that you received this as a non-US citizen? If you're lucky enough to live in a democracy, then I'd encourage you to protect it and be willing to do uncomfortable things — like emailing millions of customers — to defend it."


PRICELESS !!!!  Wow, that's what i like about you, Portland !!







Stay Safe Ya'll. 


Oh what the's the Sisters , a fave of the Raccoons !