Biased New York Times

 I my previous post, I mentioned this article from the New York Times. Let's analyse it!

1.    "President Trump spoke positively about an extremist conspiracy-theory group..."

The group in question is "Q-Anon" which presents selected facts that show Democrats involved in a paedophile ring, satanic cults, and even suggesting that the Vatican is engaged in idol worship. You can find more about it here. It is important to note that the narrator encourages the viewer to do their own research and look it all up. There are actually a surprising amount of articles supporting it, but it may well be selected research.

2.    "On the central issue of the election, the coronavirus pandemic, the two candidates appeared to inhabit not just different television sets but different universes. Mr. Biden has made the full embrace of strict public health guidelines the centerpiece of his candidacy, while Mr. Trump has continued to defy even the recommendations of his own government on matters as basic as the use of masks..."

Rather interesting how they paint Biden as the "sensible" person... but what is meant by "strict public health guidelines"? Could it mean the shutdown of the country again? Most likely. That's not a position favoured by many Americans, or much of the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the media keep banging on about Trump and masks. In Trump's Town Hall, he commented that so many people keep touching their masks and fiddling with them. They are not the most sanitary of modern-day fashion accessories, and people rarely use them in the manner needed to keep them clean so that they slow the spread. That was the point Trump was making, but of course a biased article will take it out of context.

3.    "The president professed to have no knowledge of the group [Q-Anon], and as a result could not disavow it, but then demonstrated specific knowledge of one of its core conspiracy theories involving pedophilia that is entirely false.
'I know nothing about it,' Mr. Trump said. 'I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard.'"

What's false here? Q-Anon really does not support paedophilia, and surely they should be commended for that? They even talk of Jeffrey Epstein's paedophile ring, and that is a verified fact.

It's interesting that the article devotes a large number of words to Q-Anon. The Host of Trump's Town Hall even brought up Trump and denouncing "white supremacy" (note: Trump has denounced white supremacy many times) and completely ignored Trump's comment that Joe Biden has never been asked to denounce BLM or Antifa (ironically, two anti-Trump groups that are supposedly 'anti-fascist' and yet use fascist tactics to push their agenda...). Since the host wasn't able to produce a newsworthy story about white supremacy, she turns to Q-Anon. This is why the left-wing of US politics are becoming more and more unlikeable: they continuously move the goalposts. For years, they've been asking Trump to denounce white supremacy (including recently!), despite him frequently doing so. When this host was confronted on it directly, she quickly pivoted to something else... just to produce a story for the anti-Trump press.

4.    "At the moment that Mr. Trump was effectively defending a fringe corner of the internet, Mr. Biden, the former vice president, was speaking about corporate tax rates and citing the business-analysis service Moody’s, underscoring the extraordinary gulf separating the two candidates in their worldviews, policies and connections to factual reality."

What a waste of words. This does not "underscore" anything.

5.    "With less than three weeks left in the presidential campaign, there was no sign from the town hall events that either candidate was diverging from the political tracks they laid down months ago, with Mr. Biden hewing close to a set of broadly popular views on economic and public health issues and Mr. Trump improvising freely, admitting no fault in his own record and hurling various forms of provocation."

Biden's views on the economy will cripple it. The "Green New Deal" (which Biden said he doesn't support in the first Presidential Debate, but really he does) will increase taxes, cripple the economy and implement socialism. It got slammed by many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, which is why Biden said he didn't support it, because he wants people to like him and vote for him. And this New York Times article is doing its part to push Joe Biden's agenda and tell people that "Orange Man Bad".

6.    "Indeed, their opposing presentations gave the impression that, had the two men been onstage together on Thursday evening, it might have unfolded much like their previous debate, which saw Mr. Trump hectoring and interrupting Mr. Biden for most of an hour and a half."

Actually, Biden and Trump were both interrupting each other, including the "moderator" Chris Wallace (who seemed like he was debating Trump more than Biden was). And, if you watch closely, you'll notice that it was actually Biden who started the interruptions, followed by Wallace.

7.    "Mr. Trump, by contrast, often flashed impatience with Ms. Guthrie’s persistent questioning ... The president sounded especially exasperated when she asked him to condemn white supremacy."

This is because the host spent twenty minutes quizzing Trump, when it was meant to be a Town Hall, where voters get to ask questions. The host should have kept her mouth shut and let the event be what it was supposed to be. As to "white supremacy", see the response at point 3, above. The white supremacy questions have to stop, because it's bad journalism and it's disingenuous.

8.    "Asked about a recent New York Times investigation that revealed he had paid minimal or no income taxes for years..."

Most of the media show time and again that they have zero understanding of taxes, and they present the story to readers who also have minimal understanding of taxes. It's this simple: no one likes paying taxes, and if there is a legal way to get out of paying them, a sensible person will take it. It's business. For more information, see here.

9.    "And he [Biden] jabbed at some of Mr. Trump’s more outlandish commentary on the virus, such as his suggestion that injecting disinfectant could help combat it.
'Crazy stuff,' Mr. Biden said. 'I’m not being facetious, though, I mean he actually said these things.'"

See my previous post. Biden is outright lying. Although I doubt he thinks he is, because he can't remember if he's running for President or Senate, can't recite a percentage quoted to him a few seconds before, thinks he's been in office 180 years, and thinks that Trump has already been elected twice (which would actually mean he is not allowed to run again).

10.    "Even as the coronavirus continues to tear through the country, Mr. Trump insisted that the United States was 'rounding the corner' in the health crisis..."

Yes, that's because a vaccine is almost ready. But biased media coverage denies that Trump has spurred on the creation of a vaccine and would rather blame him for every single death, despite him having no control over how the virus came to the US.

11.   "'On the masks, you have two stories,' Mr. Trump said, claiming falsely that most people who wear masks contract the virus."

If Trump was claiming that "most people who wear masks contract the virus" then there would be a much better quote than this. Journalists need to be called out on this: they quote something, then add their own opinion. Most people don't pay attention to where the quote marks end the quote and so believe that Trump actually said things that he didn't (such as injecting disinfectant...). And that's how media brainwashing occurs.

12.    "Arguing that the United States had fared well enough in the coronavirus pandemic, Mr. Trump brandished several sheets of paper as he cited figures showing rising case counts in Europe..."

This is because US biased media want Americans to believe that the US has it worse than every other country. The truth is that if you look at the number of deaths per million population the US is not top, and other countries - in Europe and in other parts of the world - are worse. Yes, the US is pretty high up, but it's not an anomaly, and it's not the worst. Added to which, the CDC has said that 94% of China virus deaths are comorbidities, meaning that there were other factors at play which may well have been the real cause of death. That would put the USA much lower in the charts. So who's politicising the virus, eh?

13.    "Perhaps notably, Mr. Trump said he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power..."

It's interesting that this gets asked of Trump. Hillary Clinton still talks about having won the popular vote and doesn't seem to have truly accepted her defeat. She has also said that Biden should not concede the election. Funny how the biased media twists things and projects.

14.    "After the president tested positive for the coronavirus this month, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that the second scheduled encounter between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden would take place virtually, for safety reasons. Mr. Trump refused to participate in such an event, leading to its cancellation."

More twisting and convenient omission of facts here. Trump "tested" positive... past tense. He's now come through it and he's no longer infected. Hence, a live debate would have been possible. Joe Biden has been seen to often use teleprompters and scripts in virtual interviews and, quite rightly, Trump doesn't want that.

15.    "The president has been determined to return to campaigning as usual despite the apparent severity of the health issues he confronted, aware that time is running short and perhaps eager to dispel any perception among voters that he might be physically frail."

More outright lies by lying media. They have been desperate to push a narrative that Trump was very badly affected by the China virus, and they never let up, as evidenced in the quote above.

Trump, disinfectants and lying media

 At a recent Town Hall meeting with Joe Biden, he said (again) falsely (again) that Trump suggest injecting disinfectants to treat Covid-19, the China virus.

Funny, isn't it? Almost everyone I know seems to believe that Trump said such a thing.

Even Snopes, the left-wing anti-Trump but supposedly "independent" fact-checker, certifies it as "true" that Trump said such a thing. I actually contacted Snopes to tell them this was incorrect, but I got no answer. See my email to them below.

And yet, here is Politifact, showing that Trump did not actually say to inject disinfectant:

The briefing transcript shows that Trump did not say people should inject themselves with bleach or alcohol to treat the coronavirus. He was asking officials on the White House coronavirus task force whether they could be used in potential cures.

But people have already made up their minds, so the truth doesn't really matter any more. It just goes to show how brainwashed people are when it comes to the media.

Here's my email to Snopes; the one I didn't get an answer to which means their false claim is still up for all to see:

Hello,
Regarding your fact-check here:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-disinfectants-covid-19/

This is incorrect. At best it is "partly true". Even the part you have quoted does not even suggest that Trump was promoting the injection of disinfectants. "Something like that" is not the same as "exactly that". The anti-Trump media take everything he says out of context, and it's a shame that you have also done so here.

Trump did not suggest that people inject themselves with disinfectants. At best, it could be argued that he suggested that medical professionals (not the public) experiment with "something like" an injection of a cleaning agent.

I was gobsmacked to find that you had this labelled as "True", especially with the quote that does not say what you are suggesting it says. Either find a better quote, one that says what you want it to, or accept that Trump did not say what the media haters were accusing him of.

I'm not American, but Trump is still a human being. Give the guy a break and be honest about what he says.

Why CNN can't be trusted

Trump-hating agents of disinformation, CNN, decided to "fact-check" Republican speakers.

They love to lump "lies" with "misleading statements" because they stretch a statement to make it seem like one word might possibly be a tiny bit misleading (even though the rest of the statement is true), but they make people believe it's outright lies.

It's disingenuous.

Louder with Crowder is on the ball with this one! Take a watch:

A quick fact-check on Jacob Blake

Recently, another black man was shot by police.

Articles like this are widespread. This is what you get if you do a simple search. They are responsible for the new wave of peaceful protests riots, as people 'react' rather than seek the truth like decent human beings would.

Everything is disingenuous.

Firstly, Jacob Blake was not killed, he was shot. Similar wording to other recent incidents is used because the fake news media know that people won't do their research. If similar wording is used, then a similar response will happen, despite the guy not being killed.

Secondly, Jacob Blake was a criminal. Not only had he done things in the past, but there was a current warrant out for his arrest.

Thirdly, Jacob Blake had already shown himself to be a threat to the public, having pulled a gun and aiming it the bartender and patrons at a bar.

Fourthly, and most importantly, when the police came to speak with him and arrest him, HE RESISTED. The point cannot be stressed enough. He actively fought police officers, refused to follow their instructions, walked around his car and reached inside for "something".

Disingenuous reporters will say that because the officers did not know what he was reaching for, they were therefore unjustified in shooting him. The reality is that if the officers do not know what a person is reaching for, they will assume it is a weapon and will defend themselves.

We all know how quickly a gun can wound or kill. The officers can only protect the public if they themselves are protected. A dead or hospitalised cop can't protect anyone.

The shooting was justified.

Jacob Blake is no hero.

The Sneaky Coronavirus

A comment from a YouTube video:

COVID-1984 is all garbage.

This coronavirus is the strangest virus I’ve ever heard of.
It’s very dangerous in the way it spreads.
It is so mysterious the way it lurks in schools, but then dies at Home Depot.
It can wreak havoc in churches; praying people are exceptionally vulnerable!
Although it’s mind-boggling how it vanishes when people stand close together holding signs, destroying businesses, homes, property, monuments, etc.
Yet, standing to watch a marathon or a concert triggers its wrath.
It is sneaky.
It can spread when buying clothes at Kohl’s but not at Target.
It is non-alcoholic. It can’t spread when you are buying beer.
It lives for two days on Amazon boxes, you must wait 48 hours to touch them but it can’t survive on Dunkin' Donuts coffee cups, so enjoying a hot cup of joe is safe.
It is the most curious thing, how it lives on basketballs, baseball bats and ballet bars, but dies on WWE ropes and Walmart shopping carts.
It is spread by hair stylists, dog groomers, and dentists, but not by bank tellers, cashiers, and fast food workers.
It’s so smart.
It won’t bother the first 10 people gathered but it knows when the 11th person shows up, so be careful if that’s you!
It even knows what you want vs. what you need.
If you want a massage or your nails done it is very actively on the prowl and not even a mask can stop it, but if you need a plumber, it is weak, and a mask will keep it away.
It also seems to be most dangerous after 5:30pm so businesses must start to close before the virus comes out of hiding and wreaks havoc upon the populations.
It also requires dine-in restaurants to have a shorter menu and you use real plates but only plastic forks and spoons.

Whoever heard of such a clever, sneaky virus?!?

Christian evangelism... bigoted??

 I was recently directed to a Reddit question:

Why must we evangelize...especially when it doesn't work and is considered bigoted?

I'm a Christian who doesn't understand the concept of evangelizing...it's literally foreign to me. So Christians are expected to convince non believers who want empirical evidence of God's existence, when the bedrock of Christianity is faith in Jesus? Please refer to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith ≠ evidence, and pretending otherwise is wilful denial.

And I'll tackle the criticisms I'm bound to receive; Jesus preached (He also performed miracles i.e. proof), as did the Apostles (but they also had the Holy Spirit which blessed people).

Furthermore, modern Christianity is viewed as a bigoted colonial religion (thanks America! /s) and its depiction in the media is less than flattering. Any motivation I had to even try is down the drain when I consider those optics...

God is going to have to be mad at me because I really don't think evangelizing is impactful in the 21st century. I'm a private believer and encourage other Christians to act the same. We can help people and show God's love through our actions. If anything, words seem to turn people away.

Anyone else feel this way?

 

My response:

I want to break down the question to help with the understanding, then answer step-by-step:

1. What is "evangelism"?

2. How should we evangelise?

3. Who is to evangelise?

4. What is "evidence" of God?

5. What makes something "bigoted"?

1. What is "evangelism"?

Evangelism is simply telling others the good news about Jesus. This message can be communicated in just a few sentences:

- The world is bad (just turn on the news).

- There is a God who loves us. - Jesus came into the world (as God's representative, filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.).

- Evil people didn't like him, so killed him.

- God used his death as the sacrifice that renews all who choose to believe in him.

- (There is a better world to come.)

People often want more than just this, but this is "the message" of evangelism (certain denominations will tweak parts or emphasise different bits). When such a message is communicated, evangelism has taken place. Often, discussion about Christian topics will include aspects of this "Gospel message", even though those discussions were not intending to be evangelistic. Most Bible study has an evangelistic element because it is very hard to discuss (in depth) any part of Scripture without touching on Jesus, sacrifice, etc.

[Note that the sentences above do not mention "hell". Some people feel that evangelism must include mention of hell, but I disagree (people are welcome to prove me wrong, but I'd want Scriptural evidence). This is because the idea of hell is usually misunderstood, poorly communicated, turns more people away than draws them closer, and not many people have a logical explanation when probed about it.]

2. How should we evangelise?

There is no "correct" method to evangelise. Some methods are more effective than others.

- Personally, I don't like the street preaching method, as usually it's someone yelling at people as they pass by... not many people stop to listen. This is hugely contrasted with Jesus who had crowds running to him to hear him. So, in my view, something is wrong with this, but I wouldn't condemn people who do it, because it does take a lot of guts.

- Some people like to get to know people, build up a relationship, then spread the message slowly, over time, through chat and discussion. This, in my experience, has the most long-lasting effects. Because it is a slow process, there is plenty of time to look things up, learn more, etc. Because of the friendship, the element of trust means that you aren't necessarily expected to have all the answers, and can explore together. (I would not consider "meeting for a coffee" to be evangelism unless there is the intention to talk about God.)

- Courses (such as the Alpha Course) can sometimes be good. These usually work best when people are seriously exploring the Christian faith, as it requires a commitment to a regular scheduled session.

- Some people prefer to let their actions speak for them, by doing charitable things. It can be very easy to get caught up in the events and forget the message, which would make it a "good deed" but not "evangelism". That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that people often kid themselves into thinking it is evangelism when it doesn't contain the message. It's also worth finding out about the organisation: many non-Christian organisations do charitable events. A Christian may see the benefit, and it may help them spread God's love to others, but "spreading God's love" is not "evangelism" unless the message is communicated as well. It cannot be stated enough that such things are not bad! Just don't be misled into thinking that all good deeds constitute "evangelism" specifically.

- Oftentimes evangelism can take place before we even realise! If someone asks, "why do you believe [something]?" Often, the answer can include the message. Personally, wherever I go, people know I am a Christian. I don't hide it. I also don't talk about it every minute, as that would turn people off (and make holding down a job pretty tough). But it means that people know they can ask me for a Christian perspective on issues, and it means I can say, "Well, as a Christian..." without the awkward silence followed by the question, "Wait, you're a Christian?!" That ice is already broken, and the discussion/conversation can then be about my comment. Most people will accept that you are a Christian, if you don't turn out to be one of those who never shuts up about it.

3. Who is to evangelise?

People often twist Matthew 28:19-20. Yes, it is referring to all followers of Jesus. Yes, it means your whole life, not just certain events or conversations (understanding the Greek of "go"). However, it does NOT say, "Therefore go and evangelise to all nations." It says "make disciples". That is a huge difference. The act of "making disciples" includes:

- Evangelising.

- Baptising.

- Further Bible study.

- Joining a community of believers (whether that's church, home group, etc.).

- Encouragement to be active in the faith to continue the process.

It is simply not good enough to seek "converts" then leave them to struggle on their own. Sadly, I see this happen all too often. Many "evangelists" count "success" by the number of converts they have made. True success is found in the number who stick out the faith until the end.

Ephesians 4:11-13 shows that there are many aspects to equipping the believers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. Why is "evangelist" a designated group like the others, if we are all to evangelise, but not all to be a prophet? Some people argue that we really are all called to do every aspect, but personally, I find that hard to justify. Some people are better suited to leading Bible studies. Others to pastoring (admittedly, some "pastors" are really bad a pastoring!), etc. All are involved in the work of "making disciples", and we should all be ready to give an answer for our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), but I find it difficult to believe that all people are instructed to specifically be "evangelists". Is the disabled person who can't speak excluded from this? The Bible doesn't say "except for certain people". No. Instead, such people can still be actively engaged in "making disciples", without the burden of being forced to "evangelise" as well.

4. What is "evidence" of God?

There are many forms of evidence. Observational evidence is what science heavily relies upon. Repeated observances lead to theories and then proves them into being facts. Sometimes observational evidence is hard to come by: no one has lived long enough to actually witness the mutational changes of evolution, and so there is an inference, which is why it remains the "theory" of evolution. (Note: "theories" are not to be confused with "theorems" in mathematics. "Theorems", like Pythagoras' Theorem, are facts, not "theories".) Inferences are not facts, and that becomes the realm of philosophy. Then there is historical evidence: accounts written by people nearer the time, or by people who have studied a particular event in great depth. Most people are happy with historical evidence (unless it applies to "Was Jesus real?" then, ironically, they become irrationally sceptical!).

Interestingly, when it comes to evidence for God, atheists fall back on "scientific" evidence as the only acceptable form. That is simply not the case, and, as has rightly been pointed out, if God could be "scientifically proven" then there would be no need for "faith" whatsoever. Is this a clever trick from the writer of the Bible, to delude people in following something make-believe? Well, it's pretty clever that there's a strong and clearly defined explanation of "faith" throughout the Bible, which was written over a number of centuries by a lot of different people! But also, many people claim to have experienced God in various ways: feelings, experiences, specific and timely advice, healings, etc. The atheist would have to discount every single one of those experiences. I would encourage all people to have a watch of Darren Wilson's "The Finger of God" (2007), as a way of avoiding being so narrow-minded in their view of the ways in which God can work.

Why doesn't God always work in the same way for all people? That's a huge question, which I won't explore here, but suffice to say that if God did that, then there again be no need for faith.

Science only tests the physical world. The Bible says that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). So therefore, science will never be able to "prove" God's existence. Why do atheists demand it? Because they deny (the true atheists, at least) the existence of anything that is not physical. They need to be called out on the bad logic. They need to learn to not be so narrow-minded to think that the physical world is all there is to our existence.

Wisdom can be found in knowing that not understanding something does not, per se, mean it does not exist.

5. What makes something "bigoted"?

A "bigot" is: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Personally, I'm not "intolerant" other people, creeds, beliefs or opinions, and I will happily discuss differences to find a logical path through life. But who's the bigot? The person who says, "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman," or the person who says, "All people should be free to marry whoever they want (and if you disagree with me, I'm going to insult you!)"? Most people who throw the words "bigot" and "intolerant" around are usually intolerant bigots themselves. To such people, I ask, "Why do you not tolerate my views?" or "Why do you hate my view so much that you want to silence me?"

"Intolerance" and "bigotry" is seen in our actions, not in our beliefs. I have friends from all religions, differing sexualities, opposite political perspectives, etc. I value all people simply because they are "people". But all opinions are not equal. I do not believe it is right to murder someone (I would argue that self-defence and war are big topics, but don't necessarily count as "murder"). I do not believe it is right to steal. I think that beliefs to the contrary are morally inferior on that topic. This can be explored through civilised and rational debate, because that respects the person of the opposing view. But to shout and scream "You're a bigot!" is an act of intolerance in the highest regard.

As a Christian, I take seriously 1 Peter 3:15, which I mentioned earlier, about always being ready to give a reasoned account for what I believe. I also take seriously the last part of that verse: "but do this with gentleness and respect." Those who scream "Bigot!" have neither (but then, they don't base their lives on the Bible, so I don't expect them have gentleness or respect!).

Trumps "20,000 lies"

The following is a response to a YouTube comment after one user, "Spyke 0511 1", kept talking about Trump and his 20,000 lies. This user, despite many times of asking, never once provided a source for this fact. So, I decided to look it up myself and came across an interesting article, which was rather easy to pull to pieces. Here is what I had to say to this user, edited slightly to make it more readable on this platform.

So, after you not providing a link, I decided to do a search for these "20,000 lies of Donald Trump" and I came across this from the Washington Post (which is hugely anti-Trump, so no surprises there).

They only have a few of the "lies" there, but if these are the "highlights" then they are not particularly good.

Firstly, it's worth noting that it's not just straight lies, it also includes "misleading statements"... well, all politicians deliberately make misleading statements, so you can probably find a whole stack for every leader of every country. But regarding the ones on the article above, in order:

- "did not want" I suppose implies Trump knew Obama's motive. Such a statement was based of the action of scaling back the program, which could certainly give the impression of not wanting to give the surplus to the police, and could well have been a pretext for something more. I guess we'll never know. It's an implied inference at best, but not a lie.

- "tremendous support" from the African American community. Well, what counts as "tremendous support"? Is there a line? Is there a particular number? The article says "no polling shows this". Well, just because polling doesn't show it, doesn't make it false. A lot of the black community do, in fact, support Trump. Have a watch of the movie "Uncle Tom" (2020) and you'll see a bunch of blacks supporting Trump. But does "tremendous support" imply numbers? Even one person doing a big thing could be considered "tremendous support". Washington Post is plain wrong on this one.

- The media is desperate to prove that Trump is a liar. Could it possibly be that the local officials are lying, in order to appeal to their base? I've heard speeches from Trump where he says the National Guard is ready to act if needs be. Maybe the local officials don't watch his speeches? (Maybe because CNN doesn't air them??) Sounds to me more like the local officials are either lying themselves, or they are uninformed. Considering they keep calling the riots "peaceful protests", either is a realistic option. Added to the fact that they don't want their authority to be seen to be undermined. Hence they want people to think they weren't forced to act, but did so "on their own".

- A "per capita" or "per million" coronavirus testing rate is not a particularly reliable metric as it only gives the proportion of the country that is tested. You could test the whole population of Vatican City in an afternoon. Monaco has "973,180 tests per million people" (that's 97.3% of the population), yet it only has a population of 39,262. The size of the country and availability of testing kits is also a huge factor. The truth is that the US has tested more than any other country (with the exception of China, but their stats are rather dodgy and they are currently trying to do everything possible to look good and humane). What Trump says about this is true and can be verified with basic maths skills. But the media hope that if they shove enough stats down people's throats, then people won't bother to fact-check the maths. Data mentioned above can be found here.

- The "2016 Russia collusion" narrative is slowly falling apart: the Steele dossier is now proved to be false; operatives in the CIA are proved to have known this, and Obama and Biden were known to have been involved in the issues regarding Michael Flynn. Fox seems to be the only News media to report this, likely because the other channels don't want their viewers to realise that they've been misled for the last few years. Every week that goes by shows that there is more evidence to show that Trump was right.

- "disgraceful" is an opinion. The only "fact-checking" you can do on an opinion is whether the person holds the opinion. "Spyke0511 1" may think this comment is "disgraceful" (because it supports Trump and knocks back the sources he holds dear). It would be idiotic for me to claim that such an opinion is a "lie". That's dishonesty from the Washington Post.

- a "private, self-contained living unit" is an interesting description. I don't think "solitary confinement" is too far removed (it's far more dishonest to call immigration detention facilities "concentration camps", but the hypocritical media loves to give AOC a pass on that one), and anyway, Washington Post says "according to some reports" Capone was in solitary. Which reports? Fake media loves anonymous sources (Ukraine whistleblower, anyone??). The only thing I could find was a very brief statement by Capone's niece that his treatment of syphilis made him violent and angry and apparently had to be put in solitary confinement. That's one, secondary, anecdotal source. Not hugely reliable. Would love to know more about that. At best, Trump's statement could be seen as an exaggeration, but certainly nowhere near the exaggeration of certain Democrat statements.

- "In 2020 no records have been set" is a dishonest statement... we're only part-way through the year and lots of stats for this years hasn't been released yet. However, 2017 had the lowest number of foreigners apprehended since 1971 (remember that back then and before, freedom of movement was much more limited). 2018 had the highest number of foreigners determined to be inadmissible (meaning, border protection were doing their job and making sure people were entering the country legally) certainly since 2005. Data can be found here and here.

I, myself, am a legal immigrant, and I feel rather strongly about people entering countries illegally, especially if they then go on to commit other crimes ("other" because the first crime is to enter the country illegally).

In order to prove Trump a "liar", Washington Post would need to provide facts/statistics. They have not. That's dishonest.

- "Trump frequently suggests" is the media putting their own spin on it. The only quote of Trump they have here is: "We've rebuilt the military, 2.5 trillion dollars." It's disingenuous to take his (factual) statement and put spin on it to make out that he was implying more than what was actually there.

- By what metric are we measuring the economy? Need some clarity here. Sure, Trump may well be being hyperbolic, as all politicians. To call it a lie? Possibly a bit far-fetched. But here's where the Washington Post does their selective fact-checking: in amongst their big explanation is a brief statement that "the president once could brag about the economy". This is an admission that Trump did have a great economy. But the "fact-check" they do isn't about the US economy in isolation, but regarding his comparison to "the history of the world". In other words, they take his most extreme statement, "fact-check" that part, then use it to convince their readers that the whole statement is false. The article also says "by just about any important measure" but unless they state what metric they are using, it's a disingenuous statement. This is the same economy that Bill Maher admitted was good and needed to collapse in order to hurt Trump.

- Border wall "fact-check" is hugely disingenuous as well. Washington Post even links to another article that they published regarding how people get through the barrier. Their anonymous "senior administration official" mentions there have been breaches (which forms the vast majority of the narrative), and also states that it's only "a few instances" and that the fencing "significantly increased security and deterrence". So is the wall a failure? It seems the media views it as a failure if there's even one single breach. That's not how it works, and the media are disingenuous for making people believe it. If there are only "a few breaches" then perhaps Trumps statement of "virtually impenetrable" is actually true. The article they linked to is here.

Another part of this supposed "lie" is that there are only 3 miles of border wall on ground that previously didn't have a wall. Anyone with a brain would know that you put the initial resources to where the biggest problems are. Why did some of the border have a wall previously? Could it be because that's where the issues were? And people found a way to get through, so they needed to reinforce that area first? The media assumes their readers can't think logically about the situation. And they get away with it because their readers (a) hardly ever read the whole article, and (b) don't fact-check them but believe everything they say!

- Regarding the "biggest tax cut", I'm out of "free articles" on the Washington Post website, and I'm certainly not paying to keep a fake news site running, so I can't access the article they link to to verify what they are saying (a nice little gimmick to force people to pay to find out they are disingenuous fakers). However, they "fact-check" according to a percentage of the GDP. If Trump was just talking about a straight dollar-for-dollar cut, he may be right (as I said, unfortunately I can't verify this). Whilst there is some benefit to "fact-checking" using a different metric than the one used in the original statement, it is disingenuous to then call him a "liar". At best, "misleading", but that's why the headline is "false or misleading" but most people emphasise the "false" part because the readership is predominantly Trump-haters who don't want to admit that all politicians make misleading statements, as it would send the message that Trump isn't actually any worse than other leaders.

Trump's "penchant for repeating false claims"... only because the anti-Trump media have decided something is false and Trump has repeated it. Showing the fake news media to be fake regarding one statement Trump makes means that they are also fake every time they repeat that Trump has repeated a "false" statement. Hence, of these "500 instances", only one needs to be disproved for them all to be disproved. But by saying Trump has repeated the statement 500 times, it makes the readership think that Trump has made 500 other false statements. That is incorrect. He has made one statement 500 times, which needs to be determined to be true or false. It's clever and deceptive reporting.

This false logic is then confirmed with the "Fact-Checker" (I'd be interested to know what this is... Snopes is a very biased "fact-checker") which is stated to have given Trump a "Bottomless Pinocchio" because he said the same thing multiple times. It's just dishonest. It's based on taking advantage of the fact that the level of logic and mathematical ability is slowly diminishing, putting out "stats and figures" to sound authoritative and hoping the audience isn't smart enough to work it out for themselves. Anyone who says "we've done this so you don't have to" (a tag-line from Huckabee on Fox, amongst others) is essentially wanting you to believe them without checking up. It's dishonest. It's demeaning. It's disgusting.

I'm not going to go through all "20,000 lies" (many of which are likely repeats, from what I've said above). If those mentioned here are the highlights, then the rest will only get worse, more far-fetched and more dishonest.

This is why I get fed up with people quoting News media as their sources for information. You want to convince me? Quote a statement Trump has made, along with the actual data (e.g. as I did above regarding immigrants) to show that what he said was false. News media is twisted and biased. Don't even quote Fox at me.