Or is this yet another left wing liberal media conspiracy? https://www.google.com/amp/www.pbs....trumps-rnc-speech?client=ms-android-motorola#
Actually, yes. Although there is nothing wrong with the AP as a source, it is not necessarily an unbiased one. Readers are always led to believe that "fact checking" articles are written by unbiased reporters who are checking the facts rather than trying to push an agenda. In reality, that is almost never the case. For example, the AP writers and contributors credited for this story are Josh Boak, Stephen Braun, Deb Riechmann, Jim Drinkard, Alicia A. Caldwell, and Elliot Spagat. Josh Boak is a reporter for Politico and Salon, both far left publications. Even so, his articles include several about economic doom and gloom under the Obama Administration. Still, he is obsessed with tweeting anti-Trump stuff. Stephen Braun works directly for Associated Press. Before that, his only news experience has been with the Los Angeles Times, another left-wing rag. Deb Riechmann is a hack with Salon, already acknowledged as a left-wing propaganda rag. Jim Drinkard is an editor with the Associated Press. He isn’t very active on Twitter, but pretty much everything he tweets politically is anti-Trump. Alicia A. Caldwell is another hack from Salon. She regularly tweets Hillary Clinton propaganda and anti-Trump stuff. Elliot Spagat is yet another Salon hack. He’s not very active on Twitter but I see some anti-Trump stuff. As far as I can see, not one of these people have ever published or said anything complimentary about Donald Trump or Republicans in general, although one of them, I forget which, is perving on Trump’s daughter.
I'll bet there will be little or no fact checking of anything said during the Democrat Convention unless it's to proclaim that nearly everything said was correct or justified. Fox might, but with its own bias.
I really do not wish to sound as though I am too critical of the thread because there is much honor when one goes out of there way to find out all the aspects of an event. But that's where I find the problem. Posting one sentence and popping up a link does little or nothing to whet my appetite for the subject matter. At this point I simply say, "so what, just another day in the political arena." If the example set by @Ken Anderson in his reply means anything at all to the OP she would come back with individual personal studies which would lay down some credulence to her initial proposed accusation. The showing of some study and a good framework surrounding a topic by the OP does so much for a thread and piques the interest of nearly everyone. Instead of allowing everyone to read someone else's work, I would rather provide the necessary information based on my personal observations and study. Obviously, one must use information that has been passed down from a supposed knowing individual but a fact check on the individual must be accomplished in order to help make a personal observation true. Going to another site and picking up a link and posting it with little or no personal effort shows me absolutely nothing regarding the thought processes and study performed by the OP. In short, for lack of any worthy information regarding the supposed "fact check" it is indeed just another left wing liberal conspiracy and business as usual for the Democratic Party and no more than handed down gossip by the OP.
Hoo boy, even with all of the rhetoric flying all over the place, it seems that even Salon has recognized the possibility of a Trump presidential win. https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/posts/10157460503160354 Here we have Andrew O'Hehir writing that Trump's speech at the RNC was powerful enough to set a winning stage for the Republican candidate. How ironic is it that the "not ready for big wavelength" rag he works for did some anti-fact checking against the candidate? "A house divided cannot stand."
Here's more Trump "fact" checking by the Washington Post. Trump's statements differ substantially from reality, but that's nothing new. By the way, the Washington Post isn't known to be a liberal left wing rag. So I guess Trump supporters will (again) ignore the issues/facts and focus on Arlene. Anyway: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/
Wouldn't be the same "Washington Post" that Trump banned from any of his events some 5 weeks ago would it? And the Same "Washington Post" that said that Trump had a *unique* chance of winning the election in another article would it? Gosh, I wonder why the Post would ever say anything bad about Trump?
We know what the hacks at Salon think, and everyone knows what the Washington Post's positions are. What do YOU think, @Arlene Richards and what are your reasons for it?
I would never waste my time they are in so deep, they'll never dig themselves out. Too many, proven lies, disgraceful bunch is all that comes to mind. Bottom feeders, lying in the gutter trying to look down on others. To bad really, because some things they stand for might actually be good, but those things would never out-weigh the bad.
Bottom feeders are all over the place, scoring points by bashing and increasing their like count. Kinda sad.
@Arlene Richards, if you have something to add that contributes to the topic, please do. Otherwise, it seems as if your only reason for being here is to complain and to insult. Please, I don't care what opinions you might hold on any topic, but please stick to your opinions on issues not your opinions of those who hold them.
BBBBBut Ken! Don't we get some kind of reward for having a lot of "likes"? I mean, I thought when I get a couple of thousand likes I can get some big trophy or an Amazon card or even an autographed picture of Hillary!! Yeah, I know already. My wife explained that the "likes" we get are just there to assure us that we are on the right track. SEO and stuff like that. Uh oh....off topic. Okay, here's one. I wonder, by comparison, how many conservative publications will come out with all of the speech analytics and fact checking? The majority of lies that Hillary has spewed for the last few years is quite well known so I doubt if there will be much written about that so.........???
It is sad, people don't have anything better to do than bash the opposition. All of us need to take a good look in the mirror before we throw any smut.
What's sad is you don't see the fault in yourself. You were banned on another forum for being nasty, twice. Yes, I've been banned too from the same forum thanks mostly to you. I've put up with you and ignored you for the most part on here because I knew you were friends with a very few on the other forum and I liked them. But if they're counting my Lols, then they aren't friends anymore. I say this with much sadness, especially concerning one or two who I thought very highly of. This is the last I'll respond to anything you say, but calling people bottom feeders is kind of low. Anybody that knows you, knows what you're like and you are doing this for no other reason but to get a rise out of people. Sorry Ken for saying all this but most that know her will agree with me.
Back on track, I don't think there is one politician that makes a speech and doesn't get fact checked and usually they all have misrepresented some facts. I was expecting it with Trumps speech and I'm sure Hillary's will be fact checked also. It's become common place. I don't even read or post these articles....that's the way it's done in Politics lately.