“Falsely claimed” for fuck's sake, you spineless republiQan sewer holes.
It’s been almost a goddamned decade CNN! WaPo? NYT? Looking at all you “falsely claimed” motherfuckers. When are you going to grow up? Hm? When are you going to actually do the work of journalism instead of your paper-thin republiQan brigading?
"Lied" implies intent, which is a very squishy subject. I'd prefer they stick to just the facts, please. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect you might be asking for libel suits if you claim somebody lied and can't actually prove that they did so intentionally.
They accuse them of bad journalism. Supposing intent you can't prove is the definition of bad journalism. People need to temper their instinctual emotions a bit. I'm upset about Trump being a serial liar too (which I can say, because I'm a nobody who can totally infer his intent) but cmon, can we not leave the very foundations of factual journalism in the dust in our quest to right that wrong?
If you can’t call a liar a liar that is not good journalism either
Why does journalism need to spoonfeed people? Why can't we take accountability? They report the facts. Facts are provable, with evidence. You can only very, very rarely prove intent with evidence. A lie is an untruth delivered with intent. They cannot prove that and as such should not report it. We, as readers, should then piece the facts together. They're giving you facts, not teaching you how to think. It's not their job.
Because most people are NPCs. They've been spoonfed their information for a century, and before that they just knew nothing. There has never been, and likely never will be, a period in history where the average person actually is an independent rational actor. Most people are proles
What? You are suggesting they can’t prove Trump said lock her up?
Of course you can prove he said that. That's the untruth. Can you prove he knew he lied? You and I know that because it's clear as day and we don't need strict evidence, but journalists do because their job is to report facts and not assumptions, even obvious ones. It's your job as a reader to take those facts and the surrounding context to construct what happened. They should not have to spoonfeed this to us in the exact verbiage we want just because we want to score a few more points because CNN said "lie".
And you should genuinely be ashamed of your reading comprehension. Your response does not make sense considering what I wrote above. I addressed that directly.
I call bs
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to find reasons to preposterously believe that Trump accidentally lied. We all know this is an outrageous lie. We all know he's an outrageous liar. I'm not asking CNN or you to say so, though, I'm asking you not to overcomplicate a very simple, very obvious lie which has a very obvious motivation. No sane or rational judge or jury is going to believe that Trump was mistaken or that he told this untruth for anything other than self-serving reasons, and Trump isn't going to sue CNN for libel on this open-and-shut case lie because he's neck-deep in legal costs and court cases already.
Just gonna say it again, yall need to learn to fucking read. Nobody is "trying to find reasons to proposterously believe Trump accidentally lied". Let me clear since yall are genuinely scarily bad at reading comprehension: Trump lied. He lies a lot and we all know it. I know it. He lied this time, just like he lied all the other times. Easy for me to say, because I will not be sued and I am not in a position of power, which allows me to play whatever game I want and say whatever I want.
Journalists are journalists. They do journalism. There are rules to proper journalism. One of those is having evidence. Do you have hard evidence that Trump knowingly told an untruth in this case? Texts from him? Documents? Not assumptions, even perfectly solid ones, but actual evidence. No, you don't. Nobody does. The journalists don't either. They can be sued for defamation and, more importantly, it's not CNN's job to tell us how to fucking think, period. Telling us shit based on assumptions, even good ones, is telling us how to think. I'm not okay with that and you shouldn't be either.
Journalists are getting played. By a serial liar and conman (and rapist, and traitor, fwiw).
Use the word. Get sued. WIN. This is bullshit.
And I get the "respect journalism" and I get the "don't throw out the facts with the bathwater" and you "people know what they're doing" crowd, I understand where you're coming from too. It's just wrong now.
In 2024 it's wrong. We're done. Journalism as it is practiced in corporate newsrooms has failed epically. A russian-backed conman who couldn't preside his way out of a wet paper reality show is poised to destroy democracy in all but name because they cant say "lied". It's bullshit. It's long past time to change.
No, they're not. You're just willing to undermine the foundations of journalism to get at Trump, which is not conducive to the long-term health of our democracy. Hell , let's just scrub the first amendment while we're at it! Then we can throw him in jail for lying! WOOOOO!
Some things are sacred for a reason. They're more important than Trump, than this moment in our history. You're trying to pull a reverse McCarthy where we just lower every bar to get at our enemies. It doesn't make us as bad as them, but it makes us something new that is also bad. I'm not okay with it, and I'm glad these news agencies are on that same page.
And really, let's zoom out for five fucking seconds. "These journalists are all getting played" By fucking what?? By saying "untruth" instead of "lie", which every person in this country is going to read nigh identically? Really, that's the big Trump win? Christ alive, yall are so politically weird and ineffective.
By saying "untruth" instead of "lie", which every person in this country is going to read nigh identically?
You got a lotta faith in that huh. Listen, media is not sacred and a “reverse McCarthy” is just McCarthy. (And Roy Cohn, which - nevermind)
Played how? Played by being told they can’t speak plainly about his constant - constant - lying. His fraudulent nature. His raping. His deep, deep ties to russia and that state’s constant and abiding support of him. They can’t - or won’t - speak plainly, openly, or frequently about these super disqualifying topics because they have a horserace to run. (There’s your sacred journalism - running the horse race.)
That’s how they’re being played. “Untruth”?? Good fucking god when was the last time you heard or used the word “untruth” in actual human conversation? ? Ever??
And they’re not even using that in the headlines. They’re using “falsely claimed” - a phrase probably never uttered at all by anyone ever, it’s so contrived.
You don’t understand that the ‘foundations of journalism’ were undermined in the 80’s. What we have today is a mutated form of advertising, mostly.
Let me get this straight: You're not sure whether Trump did deliberately claim that he didn't say, repeatedly, often, publicly, on the TV and on social media "lock her up"? You think he accidentally denied saying it, or you have come to doubt your recollection of "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"?
I'm thinking it doesn't matter what we think, it matters which one could accrue expensive court costs. Because "false claim" is specific and provable, "lied" is murky and general. When it comes to libel and slander lawsuits, the legal system runs on semantics and pedantry.
Why should they open themselves to that kind of legal system enabled retribution? After all, we all know whose pants are on fire.
Trump would most definitely lose a libel case trying to claim that his obvious lie with transparent self-serving motivation was accidental or correct. He's way too deep in legal costs and court cases to make an absurd suit like that, and there's no point doing it because he doesn't care that people know he's an out and out liar.
A libel case is different.
The problem is Trump could claim “oops I forgot that I agreed with the crowd in 2016” and that is different than intentionally lying. That’s why journalists have to split hairs here; George Santos can be called a liar but saying Trump lied this time is harder. It opens a can of worms; when Biden inevitably gets a detail wrong in another story of his should they call him a liar?
This isn't a detail, this was a campaign slogan. No one in their right mind would believe Trump didn't know exactly what he was doing both then and now. Stop trying to introduce doubt where there is none, it's absurd. (And no, he doesn't want to spend more time and money in court right now.)
In a weird way I agree with both you and the person you replied to. My own personal doublethink, I suppose.
We have the many videos. There's probably a compilation on YouTube of him starting lock her up chants.
"It doesn't matter, it was all AI generated by Antifa. Real Men Wear Diapers!"
and this is why AI/deepfakes are so scary.
It isn't just that there might be fake stuff out there. it's that real stuff could get called fake. ("I didn't say that. Deep fake FAKE NEWS FaKe NeWs!!!!")
If they can convince themselves to believe he never said it, I'm going to just assume Trumpism isn't politics so much as mental illness.
Always has been.
I mean.... in large part, I'm already there.
Interesting that you've doubted that
All humor and rhetoric aside, when 1/3 of a population thinks or believes a certain way, you can't really call them mentally ill because they would have to deviate from a norm and they are part of the norm at that point.
But I don't know how you could believe this lie without being delusional. Hence my comment. Yes I've thought they were all fucking nuts before, but that's different from actually thinking they are ill.
I'm not a mental health professional so my opinion counts for shit anyway, but I do try to take these things seriously.
LPT, strip the "?si=" part off the end of your youtube links. They are UUID tracking links meant to determine connections between users and are a massive cross-platform privacy violation.
this is the way
this is the way
That YouTube tracking parameter is probably the one I encounter the most and it's frustrating that the Firefox "Copy Link Without Site Tracking" doesn't strip it out. I'm assuming it's intentionally allowed by Mozilla because of some agreement with Google.
Mozilla and Google do have a bit of a mutually beneficial relationship going on, not one I really like, but Mozilla wouldn't exist right now if it didn't have it...
Even for Trump, this one is a lot. It was essentially his campaign slogan. He didn't just say it, he led chants of it in front of crowds.
Breaking News: Lying liar lies some more lies.
More at 11.
more at eleven
Seriously. He can’t STFU to save his life.
Trump is easy to understand:
Trump opens mouth -> Trump lies.
Seems to have alot in common with the Russian government.
That you reject the evidence of your eyes and ears is Trump's essential command.
Read this earlier today and it just blew my mind… I mean, he said it during a bunch of his rallies and invented the “lock her up” thing
If Trump is claiming something, falsely is how he is going to do it.
If it's worth claiming, it's worth falsely claiming
those fake videos aren’t me. Those are deep fakes from the deep state. I don’t remember saying that! No one I know, good people, remember that. This is the first time I’ve heard of Hillary Clinton!!
Proof of senility or a bald faced lie.
Either way, just one more reason he's unfit.
Of course he said that. How is anyone even surprised at this point? Since Day 1 he's been saying whatever he wants to be true at the time - creating his own "reality" - and his base goes with it. He's never been burdened by the truth, and there's been no repercussions for his flagrant lying. Yes, this is an outrageous lie, but even in that it's unremarkable.
I mean at this point does this clown remember like 80% of the shit he's said??
I'd like to have someone ask him to name all of his children out of the blue.
I bet he'd get three, maybe four.
They've done it, he forgets Tiffany every single time.
“Oh my kids, lovely kids. I love them all. Great kids that are doing great things.” Sir, we asked for their names.
Yeah it's not a lie if you really really don't remember lol
Republicans are NOT in a Cult and TOTALLY think for Themselves and they BELIEVE this while wearing "Lock Her Up" shirts!
"I didn't say that forty thousand times during the 2016 election!"
That is a complete lie.
One of the memes that has followed Trump for almost a decade is “Lock her up!” Is he truly this lost that he forgot one of the things he ran for president (and won) chanting?
He truly believes his base doesn't care, and they don't.
We have always been at war with Eureast Asia.
Obligatory reminder that he didn't win the popular vote.
But yes you're spot on.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed in a new interview that he didn’t make a “lock her up” call for the imprisonment of his Democratic opponent of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton.
Trump, who faces the possibility of a prison sentence after he was convicted last week on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, was asked in an interview aired Sunday on Fox News about how he had “famously said… ‘lock her up’” in relation to Clinton but did not jail her when he was president.
Facts First: Trump’s claim that “I didn’t say ‘lock her up’” is false.
He called for Clinton’s imprisonment on multiple occasions, including by using the phrase “lock her up.”
Trump often used such rhetoric while criticizing Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state during the Obama administration, which prompted a federal investigation.
Trump also explicitly called for Clinton’s imprisonment using different phrasing.
The original article contains 415 words, the summary contains 143 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What, if anything, has he ever claimed that was true?
How can someone with this big memory holes want to become president? Oh well, yeah, Olaf Scholz, oh. I'll shut up.
People are prone to follow false prophets, be it religious, political, arts, etc.
No, you don't understand. He is occasionally rude to both high ranking republicans and democrats on twitter and in fox news interviews. That means he's tough on the establishment, duh 🙄
Former President Donald Trump asked oil industry executives last month to donate $1 billion to aid his campaign to retake the White House... The oil industry has a long list of policy actions it would want Trump to take, including dismantling parts of President Joe Biden’s green agenda and rolling back pollution regulations that threaten to crimp their profits.
Yeah, he's going after the establishment... Lmfao
I need you to show some examples please. For all I know, Trump is The Swamp incarnate. Gave his family and friends high positions in the government, spent millions of tax payer money for trips to places owned by him so he directly profited from every trip. He and his family took donations (and likely bribes) from the rich and poweful both in and outside the US and his policies are super good for the rich and bad for the poor. How anyone can think he's "anti-establishment" is beyond me. The establishment is paying him to do what he does.
Hillary, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Christie, Dan Crenshaw, etc.. to name a few people. Replaced NAFTA. Cut taxes. Allowed Canadian prescription drugs to come into the U.S., cutting the cost of prescription drugs - biggest drop in half a century. Reformed Clinton-era Crime bill which lowered the prison rate for Black Americans. Signed the VA Accountability Act and removed more than 2,500 employees for misconduct and poor performance. Did not start wars. Built relationships with the Middle East and was the only president ballsy enough to enter North Korean territory to have diplomacy with Kim Jong Un. He protected Medicare and Social Security—including from socialist “Medicare-for-All” schemes, which would kick 180 million Americans off their health plans. These are some of the things that Trump did that the Establishment REFUSED to do.
Trump was and still is for the People.
Probably cause it never even came close to happening? Gullible rubes like you wanted it to happen really bad and then imagined it when it didn't.
As much as I dislike this sentiment, historically speaking, it would be par for the course.
That sucks, someone should be calling to lock Hillary Clinton up…
Why?
the most recent thing that comes to mind is her direct responsibility for libya
In what way was she directly responsible for Libya?
Libya gained independence from Italy on February 10. 1947. Hillary Rodham was born on October 26, 1947. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that her conception lines up directly with the Italian signing of the Treaty of Paris.
Clinton was part of the command structure that paid for the forces that ultimately sodomized gaddafi to death with a knife. This stands out to me more than any of the other events during the Libyan civil war because I watched Clinton joke about it on daytime tv.
Under Clinton as Secretary of State and Obama as president, America rounded up a bunch of other western countries and knocked out Libyan airfields and air defenses, which are in retrospect the thing that caused the nation to fall and directly precipitated both the much more famous 2012 attacks on both the Red Cross and CIA building in Libya and the charnel house state of Libya even six years after the war ended.
People get hung up on the CIA building attacks when you bring up Libya and Clinton because they think you’re peddling some conspiracy theory that she wanted to reduce security at the complex so people would die, but if you zoom out just a little it becomes clear that Clinton (and Obama!) are directly responsible for aiding the groups that would ultimately end up committing war crimes during the Libyan civil war and attacking American noncombatants (not that I think it’s tragic that we lost all those CIA operatives, but one of the diplomats was just an Internet forums moderator and that crime ought to carry a sentence less than death imho).
Remember that Clinton had a lot to answer for during the 2016 elections when Libya had open air slave markets.
Gaddafi was a bad man who killed and raped many innocent people. He would've used his Airforce to do exactly what Assad did and barrel bombed his own people to stay in power in the face of the Arab Spring.
Destroying that Airforce was one of the best things Obama and Clinton did. They should've immediately done the same thing in Syria, if they had we'd all be in a better position right now.
Prior to 2011, slavery and human trafficking were already major issues in Libya, though the full extent was not as widely reported. Here are some key points about slavery in Libya before the 2011 uprising:
Libya was a transit point for migrants from sub-Saharan Africa attempting to reach Europe, leaving them vulnerable to trafficking networks.[1]
The U.S. State Department's 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report noted "isolated reports that women from West and Central Africa were forced into prostitution in Libya" and that "migrants from Georgia were subjected to forced labor in Libya."[1]
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented cases of migrants being arbitrarily detained, tortured, and subjected to forced labor in Libya's detention centers before 2011.[1]
Libya's laws against human trafficking were not adequately enforced, and the government did little to prosecute traffickers or protect victims prior to 2011.[1]
The trans-Saharan slave trade routes that passed through Libya facilitated the trafficking and exploitation of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, though the full scale is unclear due to lack of data.[2]
So while open slave auctions were not as widely reported before 2011, the lawlessness, lack of government oversight, and Libya's position on migration routes allowed human trafficking and exploitation of migrants to persist as major issues even under Gaddafi's rule.[1][2] The chaos after 2011 exacerbated these pre-existing problems.
LIED. He LIED, CNN. Say it!
“Falsely claimed” for fuck's sake, you spineless republiQan sewer holes.
It’s been almost a goddamned decade CNN! WaPo? NYT? Looking at all you “falsely claimed” motherfuckers. When are you going to grow up? Hm? When are you going to actually do the work of journalism instead of your paper-thin republiQan brigading?
"Lied" implies intent, which is a very squishy subject. I'd prefer they stick to just the facts, please. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect you might be asking for libel suits if you claim somebody lied and can't actually prove that they did so intentionally.
They accuse them of bad journalism. Supposing intent you can't prove is the definition of bad journalism. People need to temper their instinctual emotions a bit. I'm upset about Trump being a serial liar too (which I can say, because I'm a nobody who can totally infer his intent) but cmon, can we not leave the very foundations of factual journalism in the dust in our quest to right that wrong?
If you can’t call a liar a liar that is not good journalism either
Why does journalism need to spoonfeed people? Why can't we take accountability? They report the facts. Facts are provable, with evidence. You can only very, very rarely prove intent with evidence. A lie is an untruth delivered with intent. They cannot prove that and as such should not report it. We, as readers, should then piece the facts together. They're giving you facts, not teaching you how to think. It's not their job.
Because most people are NPCs. They've been spoonfed their information for a century, and before that they just knew nothing. There has never been, and likely never will be, a period in history where the average person actually is an independent rational actor. Most people are proles
What? You are suggesting they can’t prove Trump said lock her up?
Of course you can prove he said that. That's the untruth. Can you prove he knew he lied? You and I know that because it's clear as day and we don't need strict evidence, but journalists do because their job is to report facts and not assumptions, even obvious ones. It's your job as a reader to take those facts and the surrounding context to construct what happened. They should not have to spoonfeed this to us in the exact verbiage we want just because we want to score a few more points because CNN said "lie".
And you should genuinely be ashamed of your reading comprehension. Your response does not make sense considering what I wrote above. I addressed that directly.
I call bs
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to find reasons to preposterously believe that Trump accidentally lied. We all know this is an outrageous lie. We all know he's an outrageous liar. I'm not asking CNN or you to say so, though, I'm asking you not to overcomplicate a very simple, very obvious lie which has a very obvious motivation. No sane or rational judge or jury is going to believe that Trump was mistaken or that he told this untruth for anything other than self-serving reasons, and Trump isn't going to sue CNN for libel on this open-and-shut case lie because he's neck-deep in legal costs and court cases already.
Just gonna say it again, yall need to learn to fucking read. Nobody is "trying to find reasons to proposterously believe Trump accidentally lied". Let me clear since yall are genuinely scarily bad at reading comprehension: Trump lied. He lies a lot and we all know it. I know it. He lied this time, just like he lied all the other times. Easy for me to say, because I will not be sued and I am not in a position of power, which allows me to play whatever game I want and say whatever I want.
Journalists are journalists. They do journalism. There are rules to proper journalism. One of those is having evidence. Do you have hard evidence that Trump knowingly told an untruth in this case? Texts from him? Documents? Not assumptions, even perfectly solid ones, but actual evidence. No, you don't. Nobody does. The journalists don't either. They can be sued for defamation and, more importantly, it's not CNN's job to tell us how to fucking think, period. Telling us shit based on assumptions, even good ones, is telling us how to think. I'm not okay with that and you shouldn't be either.
Journalists are getting played. By a serial liar and conman (and rapist, and traitor, fwiw).
Use the word. Get sued. WIN. This is bullshit.
And I get the "respect journalism" and I get the "don't throw out the facts with the bathwater" and you "people know what they're doing" crowd, I understand where you're coming from too. It's just wrong now.
In 2024 it's wrong. We're done. Journalism as it is practiced in corporate newsrooms has failed epically. A russian-backed conman who couldn't preside his way out of a wet paper reality show is poised to destroy democracy in all but name because they cant say "lied". It's bullshit. It's long past time to change.
No, they're not. You're just willing to undermine the foundations of journalism to get at Trump, which is not conducive to the long-term health of our democracy. Hell , let's just scrub the first amendment while we're at it! Then we can throw him in jail for lying! WOOOOO!
Some things are sacred for a reason. They're more important than Trump, than this moment in our history. You're trying to pull a reverse McCarthy where we just lower every bar to get at our enemies. It doesn't make us as bad as them, but it makes us something new that is also bad. I'm not okay with it, and I'm glad these news agencies are on that same page.
And really, let's zoom out for five fucking seconds. "These journalists are all getting played" By fucking what?? By saying "untruth" instead of "lie", which every person in this country is going to read nigh identically? Really, that's the big Trump win? Christ alive, yall are so politically weird and ineffective.
You got a lotta faith in that huh. Listen, media is not sacred and a “reverse McCarthy” is just McCarthy. (And Roy Cohn, which - nevermind)
Played how? Played by being told they can’t speak plainly about his constant - constant - lying. His fraudulent nature. His raping. His deep, deep ties to russia and that state’s constant and abiding support of him. They can’t - or won’t - speak plainly, openly, or frequently about these super disqualifying topics because they have a horserace to run. (There’s your sacred journalism - running the horse race.)
That’s how they’re being played. “Untruth”?? Good fucking god when was the last time you heard or used the word “untruth” in actual human conversation? ? Ever??
And they’re not even using that in the headlines. They’re using “falsely claimed” - a phrase probably never uttered at all by anyone ever, it’s so contrived.
You don’t understand that the ‘foundations of journalism’ were undermined in the 80’s. What we have today is a mutated form of advertising, mostly.
Let me get this straight: You're not sure whether Trump did deliberately claim that he didn't say, repeatedly, often, publicly, on the TV and on social media "lock her up"? You think he accidentally denied saying it, or you have come to doubt your recollection of "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"?
I'm thinking it doesn't matter what we think, it matters which one could accrue expensive court costs. Because "false claim" is specific and provable, "lied" is murky and general. When it comes to libel and slander lawsuits, the legal system runs on semantics and pedantry.
Why should they open themselves to that kind of legal system enabled retribution? After all, we all know whose pants are on fire.
Trump would most definitely lose a libel case trying to claim that his obvious lie with transparent self-serving motivation was accidental or correct. He's way too deep in legal costs and court cases to make an absurd suit like that, and there's no point doing it because he doesn't care that people know he's an out and out liar.
A libel case is different.
The problem is Trump could claim “oops I forgot that I agreed with the crowd in 2016” and that is different than intentionally lying. That’s why journalists have to split hairs here; George Santos can be called a liar but saying Trump lied this time is harder. It opens a can of worms; when Biden inevitably gets a detail wrong in another story of his should they call him a liar?
This isn't a detail, this was a campaign slogan. No one in their right mind would believe Trump didn't know exactly what he was doing both then and now. Stop trying to introduce doubt where there is none, it's absurd. (And no, he doesn't want to spend more time and money in court right now.)
In a weird way I agree with both you and the person you replied to. My own personal doublethink, I suppose.
tHeY hAvE tO bE oBjEcTiVe.
We have the many videos. There's probably a compilation on YouTube of him starting lock her up chants.
"It doesn't matter, it was all AI generated by Antifa. Real Men Wear Diapers!"
and this is why AI/deepfakes are so scary.
It isn't just that there might be fake stuff out there. it's that real stuff could get called fake. ("I didn't say that. Deep fake FAKE NEWS FaKe NeWs!!!!")
If they can convince themselves to believe he never said it, I'm going to just assume Trumpism isn't politics so much as mental illness.
Always has been.
I mean.... in large part, I'm already there.
Interesting that you've doubted that
All humor and rhetoric aside, when 1/3 of a population thinks or believes a certain way, you can't really call them mentally ill because they would have to deviate from a norm and they are part of the norm at that point.
But I don't know how you could believe this lie without being delusional. Hence my comment. Yes I've thought they were all fucking nuts before, but that's different from actually thinking they are ill.
I'm not a mental health professional so my opinion counts for shit anyway, but I do try to take these things seriously.
https://youtu.be/S5cnrp5UNnA here's one
LPT, strip the "?si=" part off the end of your youtube links. They are UUID tracking links meant to determine connections between users and are a massive cross-platform privacy violation.
this is the way
this is the way
That YouTube tracking parameter is probably the one I encounter the most and it's frustrating that the Firefox "Copy Link Without Site Tracking" doesn't strip it out. I'm assuming it's intentionally allowed by Mozilla because of some agreement with Google.
Mozilla and Google do have a bit of a mutually beneficial relationship going on, not one I really like, but Mozilla wouldn't exist right now if it didn't have it...
Here’s the link with that part removed.
Cool, edited
You can also replace the tracking parameter with #t=xxmyys to go to a specific timestamp in the video.
He real scared about that sentencing.
I hope so.
Even for Trump, this one is a lot. It was essentially his campaign slogan. He didn't just say it, he led chants of it in front of crowds.
Breaking News: Lying liar lies some more lies.
More at 11.
Seriously. He can’t STFU to save his life.
Trump is easy to understand:
Trump opens mouth -> Trump lies.
Seems to have alot in common with the Russian government.
That you reject the evidence of your eyes and ears is Trump's essential command.
Read this earlier today and it just blew my mind… I mean, he said it during a bunch of his rallies and invented the “lock her up” thing
If Trump is claiming something, falsely is how he is going to do it.
If it's worth claiming, it's worth falsely claiming
Proof of senility or a bald faced lie.
Either way, just one more reason he's unfit.
Of course he said that. How is anyone even surprised at this point? Since Day 1 he's been saying whatever he wants to be true at the time - creating his own "reality" - and his base goes with it. He's never been burdened by the truth, and there's been no repercussions for his flagrant lying. Yes, this is an outrageous lie, but even in that it's unremarkable.
I mean at this point does this clown remember like 80% of the shit he's said??
I'd like to have someone ask him to name all of his children out of the blue.
I bet he'd get three, maybe four.
They've done it, he forgets Tiffany every single time.
“Oh my kids, lovely kids. I love them all. Great kids that are doing great things.” Sir, we asked for their names.
Yeah it's not a lie if you really really don't remember lol
Republicans are NOT in a Cult and TOTALLY think for Themselves and they BELIEVE this while wearing "Lock Her Up" shirts!
"I didn't say that forty thousand times during the 2016 election!"
That is a complete lie.
One of the memes that has followed Trump for almost a decade is “Lock her up!” Is he truly this lost that he forgot one of the things he ran for president (and won) chanting?
He truly believes his base doesn't care, and they don't.
We have always been at war with Eureast Asia.
Obligatory reminder that he didn't win the popular vote.
But yes you're spot on.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed in a new interview that he didn’t make a “lock her up” call for the imprisonment of his Democratic opponent of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton.
Trump, who faces the possibility of a prison sentence after he was convicted last week on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, was asked in an interview aired Sunday on Fox News about how he had “famously said… ‘lock her up’” in relation to Clinton but did not jail her when he was president.
Facts First: Trump’s claim that “I didn’t say ‘lock her up’” is false.
He called for Clinton’s imprisonment on multiple occasions, including by using the phrase “lock her up.”
Trump often used such rhetoric while criticizing Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state during the Obama administration, which prompted a federal investigation.
Trump also explicitly called for Clinton’s imprisonment using different phrasing.
The original article contains 415 words, the summary contains 143 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What, if anything, has he ever claimed that was true?
How can someone with this big memory holes want to become president? Oh well, yeah, Olaf Scholz, oh. I'll shut up.
People are prone to follow false prophets, be it religious, political, arts, etc.
Proof:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/V8_8xmDlM6A
/discussion
That's what dementia looks like...
Seit me denne
He's fked with the establishment. And now the establishment is returning the favor.
He absolutely did not fuck with "the establishment". He's openly and proudly for sale lol.
Yes. He did. Went after establishment right and left. How the fk did you miss that? LOL
For those who don't know, Here he is going after the establishment: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-executives-campaign-finance-00157131
No, you don't understand. He is occasionally rude to both high ranking republicans and democrats on twitter and in fox news interviews. That means he's tough on the establishment, duh 🙄
Yeah, he's going after the establishment... Lmfao
I need you to show some examples please. For all I know, Trump is The Swamp incarnate. Gave his family and friends high positions in the government, spent millions of tax payer money for trips to places owned by him so he directly profited from every trip. He and his family took donations (and likely bribes) from the rich and poweful both in and outside the US and his policies are super good for the rich and bad for the poor. How anyone can think he's "anti-establishment" is beyond me. The establishment is paying him to do what he does.
Hillary, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Christie, Dan Crenshaw, etc.. to name a few people. Replaced NAFTA. Cut taxes. Allowed Canadian prescription drugs to come into the U.S., cutting the cost of prescription drugs - biggest drop in half a century. Reformed Clinton-era Crime bill which lowered the prison rate for Black Americans. Signed the VA Accountability Act and removed more than 2,500 employees for misconduct and poor performance. Did not start wars. Built relationships with the Middle East and was the only president ballsy enough to enter North Korean territory to have diplomacy with Kim Jong Un. He protected Medicare and Social Security—including from socialist “Medicare-for-All” schemes, which would kick 180 million Americans off their health plans. These are some of the things that Trump did that the Establishment REFUSED to do.
Trump was and still is for the People.
Probably cause it never even came close to happening? Gullible rubes like you wanted it to happen really bad and then imagined it when it didn't.
He is the establishment
HAHA wtf.
Yeah, he's been an ultrawealthy real estate tycoon for the past 50+ years. It's wild you missed that.
He didn’t miss it, he’s just a Nazi troll
These bastards are barely looking at the orb while they ponder it!
He is the unmasked version of US politics that says the quiet stuff out loud.
i just realized that Biden might pardon Trump lol
As much as I dislike this sentiment, historically speaking, it would be par for the course.
That sucks, someone should be calling to lock Hillary Clinton up…
Why?
the most recent thing that comes to mind is her direct responsibility for libya
In what way was she directly responsible for Libya?
Libya gained independence from Italy on February 10. 1947. Hillary Rodham was born on October 26, 1947. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that her conception lines up directly with the Italian signing of the Treaty of Paris.
Clinton was part of the command structure that paid for the forces that ultimately sodomized gaddafi to death with a knife. This stands out to me more than any of the other events during the Libyan civil war because I watched Clinton joke about it on daytime tv.
Under Clinton as Secretary of State and Obama as president, America rounded up a bunch of other western countries and knocked out Libyan airfields and air defenses, which are in retrospect the thing that caused the nation to fall and directly precipitated both the much more famous 2012 attacks on both the Red Cross and CIA building in Libya and the charnel house state of Libya even six years after the war ended.
People get hung up on the CIA building attacks when you bring up Libya and Clinton because they think you’re peddling some conspiracy theory that she wanted to reduce security at the complex so people would die, but if you zoom out just a little it becomes clear that Clinton (and Obama!) are directly responsible for aiding the groups that would ultimately end up committing war crimes during the Libyan civil war and attacking American noncombatants (not that I think it’s tragic that we lost all those CIA operatives, but one of the diplomats was just an Internet forums moderator and that crime ought to carry a sentence less than death imho).
Remember that Clinton had a lot to answer for during the 2016 elections when Libya had open air slave markets.
Gaddafi was a bad man who killed and raped many innocent people. He would've used his Airforce to do exactly what Assad did and barrel bombed his own people to stay in power in the face of the Arab Spring.
Destroying that Airforce was one of the best things Obama and Clinton did. They should've immediately done the same thing in Syria, if they had we'd all be in a better position right now.
Prior to 2011, slavery and human trafficking were already major issues in Libya, though the full extent was not as widely reported. Here are some key points about slavery in Libya before the 2011 uprising:
Libya was a transit point for migrants from sub-Saharan Africa attempting to reach Europe, leaving them vulnerable to trafficking networks.[1]
The U.S. State Department's 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report noted "isolated reports that women from West and Central Africa were forced into prostitution in Libya" and that "migrants from Georgia were subjected to forced labor in Libya."[1]
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented cases of migrants being arbitrarily detained, tortured, and subjected to forced labor in Libya's detention centers before 2011.[1]
Libya's laws against human trafficking were not adequately enforced, and the government did little to prosecute traffickers or protect victims prior to 2011.[1]
The trans-Saharan slave trade routes that passed through Libya facilitated the trafficking and exploitation of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, though the full scale is unclear due to lack of data.[2]
So while open slave auctions were not as widely reported before 2011, the lawlessness, lack of government oversight, and Libya's position on migration routes allowed human trafficking and exploitation of migrants to persist as major issues even under Gaddafi's rule.[1][2] The chaos after 2011 exacerbated these pre-existing problems.
Citations: [1] Slavery in Libya - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Libya [2] [PDF] The Social and Economic History of Slavery in Libya (1800- 1950) https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/54580088/FULL_TEXT.PDF [3] Libya's Modern Slavery and the Politics of Denial https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/libyas-modern-slavery-and-the-politics-of-denial/ [4] The return of slavery in Libya - Grow Think Tank https://www.growthinktank.org/en/the-return-of-slavery-in-libya/ [5] High Commissioner for Refugees Calls Slavery, Other Abuses in ... https://press.un.org/en/2017/sc13094.doc.htm