The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade

[Caomhaoin]

Granted, but finding a person without opinions and biases about the man one way or the other would be your principal issue.

You'd need snookers once he drops that freedom bomb 'fake news'.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I was hardly suggesting one person did it, more like an independent body engaged for the purposes of the debate, an adjoint to the arbiter.

[Caomhaoin]

It's all much of a muchness, good luck finding an impartial arbitrator, there is no such body or individual  that would be accepted by both sides, so it's a null set.

[pete]

A lot of things he says are easily proven to be lies though. We all have access to a lot of information these days, he doesn't seem to realise this.

[Caomhaoin]

One thing that annoys me about him is his BS which has an element of truth to it, like Obama creating the family separation law at the border. There's a kernel of truth in that, but he can't help but embellish it.

[pete]

One thing that annoys me about him is his BS which has an element of truth to it, like Obama creating the family separation law at the border. There's a kernel of truth in that, but he can't help but embellish it.

What has Trump said exactly? And what is the truth in it?

[Caomhaoin]

After he ended the policy of separating kids from their parents (migrants) at the southern border, he said that (when he rescinded the law) that in fact Obama had created the law. There was separation, but no law to oblige the practice,  and it was less widespread.

Stupidity really, and that's coming from someone who likes the man.

[pete]

After he ended the policy of separating kids from their parents (migrants) at the southern border, he said that (when he rescinded the law) that in fact Obama had created the law. There was separation, but no law to oblige the practice,  and it was less widespread.

Stupidity really, and that's coming from someone who likes the man.

My understanding was the separation that started under the Trump Admin was different to previous admins (which was very rare) due to the fact that Trump started sending parents to Federal Prisons as part of his zero tolerance policy and children were sent to detention centres and then either settled with relatives or foster homes.

Is that your understanding?

[Caomhaoin]

Trump signed the practice into law where there previously hadn't been one. He then rescinded the law, realising most people weren't going to tolerate the horror stories of kids being taken from their families in every case. No such law existed under Obama, although the practice did occasionally occur.

So the ending of the law (fair play for holding his hands up) was soured a bit by him claiming (dishonestly) that he ended an unjust practice legalised by the previous administration. He should have said 'that was wrong, but look, I've held my hands up and I've sorted it out'. He couldn't resist the sugar and spice of being the even bigger hero by bullshitting. But sure as annoying as it is, the way the left react to it is daft as well.

My position is Trump is not that bad. The issue is, his enemies are unwilling to give him even a modicum if the credit he deserves for his achievements by either rubbishing the context, or 'yeah, maybe, but what about Tom, Dick or Harrying' it. He does talk shite. He also has gotten plenty done for the good of his country. Some people might do well to widen their horizons on the subject.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

In other words, a perfect example of something that can be objectively fact-checked.

[Caomhaoin]

No one denies he is not a BSer.

I have my doubts whether you would accept anything positive related to him without trawling through Vox or Washington Post, desperately looking for a way to debunk or discredit it.

There are plenty of blind Trump supporters who would do the same to 'debunk' what I've just said there about the familial separation.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Dates on which laws are ratified are objective facts. Whether Biden is on record as supporting 'Defund the police' too, same with cherry picked statistics (% of positive cases rather than % of population example). If candidates were called on such things ("Earlier you said X, but our fact checkers show no record of X being the case. Can you correct or else rescind please?"). In achievable epistemic circumstances like that, Trump would crumble. Biden would take some flak too, but Trump would be almost wholly disarmed.

[Caomhaoin]

Not everyone is as reasonable as yours truly though.

Wholly disarmed is overstating the issue, and it just demonstrates your fundamental (I'm loath yo day hatred but it's not too far of the mark) dislike of Trump that you would say that. No everything he says is bollocks, and perhaps of you spent some time looking into his claims about black employment, wage increases, more women in his cabinet than any other president (despite being a misogynist...) you might come to the conclusion that he's not the arch bungler and arch villain you persistently portray him as.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I don't think he's an arch-bungler at all. I think he's an arch-charlatan 

[Caomhaoin]

By the way, it's my belief that Trump would crush Biden in a debate has less to do with fact checking (a presidential campaign doesn't rely solely on that), and more to do with the fact that Biden is often incoherent and gives the impression of already being in his dotage, low energy and confusion ooze out of him.

Trump is a billy big bollocks who can work a crowd like Andy can a guitar or his Mickey. T'would be lambs to the slaughter.