Trump vindicated

Indiana- Trump will say things that seem insane in an effort to get the media and their NPC’s - many in here - to rush out and “debunk” only to expose that they are indeed the liars.

1 Like

Ya because TikTok is really a pillar of integrity with these things.

What I do know is the Springfield Police were aware of some of the town hall meetings but said nothing was substantiated.

Like, if someone’s Haitian immigrant neighbor ate their cat, I find it hard to believe there wouldn’t be a police report about it. But yeah I believe there could be some cultural problems with the new immigrants.

And that’s why the guy is blasting the police.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-haitian-immigrants-stealing-eating-pets-ohio-2024-09-10/

Who fact checks Reuters? Asking for a friend.

Here’s how some of these things tend to go. There are plenty of examples. I’m not saying this is the case here, but would it shock anybody? These are the midwits. Look up the term and you will know what I’m talking about. Here’s the pattern

  1. There is no way Haitians are eating cats. That’s just crazy and you are such an incel to even suggest it. How outrageous!

  2. Ok, maybe there is some evidence, but what’s the big deal? It’s not like it’s that prevalent.

  3. You know, it’s actually a good thing that they are eating the geese and stray cats. We have too many anyway.

  4. In fact, you are racist for saying the immigrants shouldn’t eat the cats and dogs. You just don’t appreciate other cultures.

Here’s an example. There are several articles talking about how it’s crazy that Trump said Kamala is for transgender surgery for inmates. They said it was so crazy he even said that. It’s actually on record that she said just that and when she ran for president in the questionnaire she filled out that question was asked and she said yes.

Another example. Remember when it was crazy to say that COVID probably came from a lab leak? Totally nuts right? Well, then it was eventually discovered that it wasn’t from a bat in soup or some nonsense and the obvious answer that both the low IQ folks and the high IQ folks saw was that yeah, it was the lab leak.

The midwits in the middle of the IQ range are saying it’s impossible. It’s too outrageous. You guys are a bunch of idiots to even suggest it.

img (28)

img (38)

Are you a COMPLETE idiot?

The point is that the woman is not Haitian and she’s not an immigrant.

What the hell is the matter with you? You get busted posting disinformation and you still insist you’re right?

Lol you have zero credibility dude.

Are you claiming the police refused to file a police report? Did the guy claim that?

You are free to if you like. All you gotta do is post some substance.

Or maybe this is Reuters version of “facts”

https://twitter.com/NickJFreitas/status/1833819074222051560

Just saying…For the record, a town near me just had a bunch of immigrants dumped on it, at least some of them are Haitians. I see some of them at an area DMV near a coffee shop I frequent. But I haven’t heard of anything like this going on or many complaints at all really.

But I don’t talk to many people over there.

Reuters has an internal, dedicated Fact Check team that fact-checks its reporting and have established strict guidelines for verifying the accuracy of their content. However, external organizations and third-party fact-checkers also review Reuters’ content as part of the broader media ecosystem including Media Bias/Fact Check, Poynter Institute’s International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), FactCheck.Org, Politifact, and Snopes.
Also, they participate in fact-checking partnerships with third parties.

So all the “fact checkers” are buddies…Gotcha.

Phewww…Now I feel better

How are they buddies? The same people who review Trump’s comments are the same people who review Reuters as far as fact checks. It’s nefarious when its Trump but they’re buddies when its Reuters?

They are all part of the same “ecosystem”

So what did they do? Pinky swear?

Yes, the media ecosystem which includes everyone from CNN to Mark Levin’s radio show and Newsmaxx. I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Seems disingenuous…print media is in the same ecosystem as other print media, and television media is in the same ecosystem as other television media and one news reporting agency is in the same ecosystem as other news reporting agencies. Yes.

Why should I believe their “fact-checking” is infallible and well meant?

I’m not talking in blind defense of Trump…I know a fact check could make a living off of him, he says some of the dumbest shit known to man.

You definitely should not. Even the Dictionary is not infallible. I don’t think “well meant” is necessarily applicable considering not a single source is doing the fact checking and they’re fact checking each other, hence peer review. Unless the entire world is in on the con, the viability of them being “well meaning” is inconsequential.
When the Dictionary gets something wrong, it’s usually user feedback or internal corrections that bring it to light, regularly allowing for feeback to review the issues. Then, there are Errata Notices in the case of print Dictionaries wherein an error is discovered after the fact, an “errata” or list of corrections is published and included in subsequent printings until the source version is corrected. In some cases they even have a linguistics debate internally with regards to language use, regional variations, evolving meanings, etc.
In the same manner, fact check organizations and Reuters handle their corrections. The desire for accurate results is the point, however, and they are quite transparent as to mistakes and their efforts to maintain accuracy in their efforts. But, nobody is infallible.

1 Like

No politician in U.S. history has been subjected to more dirty tricks than Trump. The Bidens have gotten away with murder. Even Hunter likely won’t see prison bars despite the profundity of evidence of criminality found in his laptop.

I don’t think anyone can guarantee this, at least big picture.

Sure, but when you want to counter someone’s “facts” you usually do that by bringing facts.

You can’t just say, “Hurr hurr, that’s what Reuters says.” You need to show evidence to the contrary.

Not only the city manager, but the mayor AND the police department in question have denied there was anything substantive.

In the absence of anything substantive, we shouldn’t be making assumptions.

No, but you shouldn’t NOT believe it for no reason at all. If there are facts counter to the narrative, that is one thing. But these agencies put this info out for anybody to counter. Where are the people who tried to file a police report? Where is the proof?

Why? I’m doing what Reutuers is doing.

No, but you shouldn’t NOT believe it for no reason at all

Why?

I don’t believe much. I’m cool with that.

I posted multiple videos. I posted a complete city council meeting lol.

Maybe you’re the complete idiot…. Or cherry picker?