Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on November 23, 2015, 02:28:01 PM
-
Who is lying? Donald Trump, or the NYPD?
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump twice repeated over the weekend that he saw people cheering in New Jersey after the September 11 attacks -- but his claims are being widely disputed as false.
Trump first made the claim at a campaign rally in Alabama on Saturday, where he said he "watched the World Trade Center go down" and watched in New Jersey, "as thousands of people were cheering as the building was coming down."
He doubled down on those claims in an interview Sunday with ABC's "This Week," even as George Stephanopoulos pushed back.
"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations," Trump said. "They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down."
"Police say it didn't happen," Stephanopoulos pressed, to which Trump said he saw it himself on television.
Trump claimed: "It was well covered at the time."
But numerous publications and local politicians have said Trump is incorrect.
Both Politifact and The Washington Post's Fact Checker analyzed Trump's claim. Politifact rated it "pants on fire" and The Washington Post gave it "four Pinocchios."
Neither outlet could find any news reports that corroborate Trump's account of events. There were a few reports of rumors that there were celebrations in New Jersey, along with images of Palestinians celebrating overseas that were broadcast locally.
A September 17, 2001, an Associated Press story referred to "unfounded ... rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City, New Jersey.
And in a September 18, 2001, article, The Washington Post wrote that "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." But there was no source for the information and there is no evidence of anything coming of the questioning.
-
Ben Carson Says He Also Saw The Nonexistent Footage Of Muslims Celebrating 9/11 In New Jersey
Ben Carson Says He Also Saw The Nonexistent Footage Of Muslims Celebrating 9/11 In New Jersey
Source: Right Wing Watch
Not content with Donald Trump having all the attention for his latest string of bigoted statements, Ben Carson told CNN today that he too saw footage of Muslim residents of New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks:
Read more: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-says-he-also-saw-non-existent-footage-muslims-celebrating-911-new-jersey#sthash.vI2xaphs.dpuf
Ben Carson: "Me too! Me too!"
-
It's interesting that when you search dancing 9/11, all the stories come up related to those Israeli guys seen celebrating as the towers burned (and were reported to police at that time).
-
" law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281448290025183&tid=ss_fb
-
" law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281448290025183&tid=ss_fb
The guys on the train weren't suspicious at all! Nope, nothing to see there.
-
Carson Backs Off Comments About US Muslims Cheering on 9/11
Source: ABC News
Hours after telling reporters that he saw a video of American Muslims in New Jersey cheering on Sept. 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center's twin towers fell, Ben Carson's campaign apologized for the remarks, saying he "doesn't stand behind" them and that they were "a mistake."
When asked by ABC News if American Muslims were cheering on 9/11 -- as has been suggested by Donald Trump -- Carson said “Yes.”
However, Carson made a 180 a short time later.
"He doesn't stand behind his comments to New Jersey and American Muslims," said campaign spokesman Doug Watts said. "He was rather thinking of the protests going on in the Middle East and some of the demonstrations that we're going on in celebration of the towers going down.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ben-carson-newsreels-american-muslims-cheering-911/story?id=35376256
-
Who is lying? Donald Trump, or the NYPD?
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump twice repeated over the weekend that he saw people cheering in New Jersey after the September 11 attacks -- but his claims are being widely disputed as false.
Trump first made the claim at a campaign rally in Alabama on Saturday, where he said he "watched the World Trade Center go down" and watched in New Jersey, "as thousands of people were cheering as the building was coming down."
He doubled down on those claims in an interview Sunday with ABC's "This Week," even as George Stephanopoulos pushed back.
"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations," Trump said. "They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down."
"Police say it didn't happen," Stephanopoulos pressed, to which Trump said he saw it himself on television.
Trump claimed: "It was well covered at the time."
But numerous publications and local politicians have said Trump is incorrect.
Both Politifact and The Washington Post's Fact Checker analyzed Trump's claim. Politifact rated it "pants on fire" and The Washington Post gave it "four Pinocchios."
Neither outlet could find any news reports that corroborate Trump's account of events. There were a few reports of rumors that there were celebrations in New Jersey, along with images of Palestinians celebrating overseas that were broadcast locally.
A September 17, 2001, an Associated Press story referred to "unfounded ... rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City, New Jersey.
And in a September 18, 2001, article, The Washington Post wrote that "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." But there was no source for the information and there is no evidence of anything coming of the questioning.
You also thought Ben Carson was lying and see how that backfired?
-
You also thought Ben Carson was lying and see how that backfired?
ben carson admitted that some of the things in his book weren't true.
Remember?
-
ben carson admitted that some of the things in his book weren't true.
Remember?
No, actually I don't. 240, you don't want to rehash this. lol
-
No, actually I don't. 240, you don't want to rehash this. lol
Ben Carson admits details aren't all accurate in his books ...
Republican presidential contender Ben Carson, facing intense scrutiny over the accuracy of many of the stories in his best-selling books, appeared to admit Wednesday night that not all of his accounts are precise.
“I defy you to find anybody who can go back and very accurately detail everything that happened 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago,” the retired neurosurgeon said on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” Wednesday night.
“You can give the general flavor and that’s what I did, working with a co-writer. You’re never going to have the exact details in that kind of situation,” he added.
Carson has come under intense questioning for many of the anecdotes from his personal life that he has described in his books.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ben-carson-admits-details-aren-accurate-books-article-1.2432370
-
No, actually I don't. 240, you don't want to rehash this. lol
LOL @ you wanting to turn this into a ben carson thread.
personally, I believe trump. BUT that means you are calling Christie, Carson, the NYPD, and everyone else that says it never happened - youre calling them LIARS.
Who is full of shit on this - Trump or all of them?
-
LOL @ you wanting to turn this into a ben carson thread.
personally, I believe trump. BUT that means you are calling Christie, Carson, the NYPD, and everyone else that says it never happened - youre calling them LIARS.
Who is full of shit on this - Trump or all of them?
The left. Never to be trusted. Fact.
-
The left. Never to be trusted. Fact.
we're talking about repubs vs repub now. Understand that? No leftist boogeyman to blame.
Either republican Trump is lying, or republican Christie + carson + NYPD are all covering up this celebration.
WHICH IS IT? WHICH REPUB IS LYING?
-
Obviously Trump is lying. He never saw that on TV. But here is the kicker. His supporters won't care that he lied. It just doesn't matter.
-
Obviously Trump is lying. He never saw that on TV. But here is the kicker. His supporters won't care that he lied. It just doesn't matter.
Are you confusing Trump's supporters with those of Hillary and Obama?
-
Are you confusing Trump's supporters with those of Hillary and Obama?
Not at all... nor Carson's supporters... Republicans don't hold the patent on gullibility, though often times I think they set the standard
-
Obviously Trump is lying. He never saw that on TV. But here is the kicker. His supporters won't care that he lied. It just doesn't matter.
He said THOUSANDS. Nobody else saw this. Except carson. Then he changed his story.
thousands of people in 'jersey city' cheering as the towers fell.
Will any republican defend their FRONTRUNNER? He just made up a huge lie about 9/11... and *crickets*
-
Not at all... nor Carson's supporters... Republicans don't hold the patent on gullibility, though often times I think they set the standard
Meh. I have seen nothing this campaign season that rivals Obama's dishonesty as president and Hillary's blatant misrepresentations regarding Benghazi. Their supporters don't care.
-
Meh. I have seen nothing this campaign season that rivals Obama's dishonesty as president and Hillary's blatant misrepresentations regarding Benghazi. Their supporters don't care.
Grasshopper, you must first open your ears.. before you can hear
-
Meh. I have seen nothing this campaign season that rivals Obama's dishonesty as president and Hillary's blatant misrepresentations regarding Benghazi. Their supporters don't care.
I can understand why you'd want to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Trump made up a horrible claim about 911... he's the republican FRONTRUNNER and he's disgracing their memories.
yeah, attacking a getbigger might change the subject for a minute, but it won't change how annoyed you are, that the most likely candidate for your party is an immature dem who should have washed out months ago.
-
Grasshopper, you must first open your ears.. before you can hear
Open my ears to what? That the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a youtube video?
Or that the individual mandate in Obamacare is not a tax?
Or that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
-
Open my ears to what? That the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a youtube video?
Or that the individual mandate in Obamacare is not a tax?
Or that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
this is a thread about trump's outrageous 911 claims.
not a place to diss hilary. Lots of other threads for that.
thanks in advance.
-
this is a thread about trump's outrageous 911 claims.
not a place to diss hilary. Lots of other threads for that.
thanks in advance.
If you don't like my comments, don't read them. Troll.
-
I guess we are arguing this.. Obama, Hillary etc are no worse than Trump or Carson. I think they all lie, we can argue about degrees... or reasons.. I think Trump is not only not suited for the office, he is a sociopathic narcissist. Of all the candidates he scares me most. But yeah, Obama lied, Hillary has lied, Trump has lied , Carson is lying about something right now somewhere.. where do we go from here?
-
I guess we are arguing this.. Obama, Hillary etc are no worse than Trump or Carson. I think they all lie, we can argue about degrees... or reasons.. I think Trump is not only not suited for the office, he is a sociopathic narcissist. Of all the candidates he scares me most. But yeah, Obama lied, Hillary has lied, Trump has lied , Carson is lying about something right now somewhere.. where do we go from here?
I disagree for the most part. Trump is definitely a narcissist. A liar? I don't know. He think he just talks out of rear end a lot. Sort of stream of consciousness stuff.
Carson? Absolutely not a liar. I am not impressed at all with the MSM media smear campaign.
Hillary and Obama? Proven, demonstrable dishonesty (like the examples I just gave).
-
I disagree for the most part. Trump is definitely a narcissist. A liar? I don't know. He think he just talks out of rear end a lot. Sort of stream of consciousness stuff.
Carson? Absolutely not a liar. I am not impressed at all with the MSM media smear campaign.
Hillary and Obama? Proven, demonstrable dishonesty (like the examples I just gave).
Interesting
-
According to Politifact, when checking Donald Trumps statements, he lies %74 of the time. 3 out of 4 statements aren't true. what percentage would you consider unacceptable?
-
According to Politifact, when checking Donald Trumps statements, he lies %74 of the time. 3 out of 4 statements aren't true. what percentage would you consider unacceptable?
Zero is acceptable.
But politifact is a farce.
-
Arguing that there are terrorist sympathizers in the United States, Donald Trump says he saw "thousands" of New Jerseyans celebrating after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," the Republican presidential candidate said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."
The next day, ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he misspoke, noting that "the police say that didn't happen."
Trump -- who has said he was in his Manhattan apartment the morning of the attack -- doubled down.
"It was on television. I saw it," Trump said. "It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good."
We looked back at the record to see what we could find about American Muslim celebrations in New Jersey on 9/11. While we found widely broadcast video of people in the Palestinian territories celebrating, we found no evidence to back up Trump’s description of events on American soil.
Urban myth
We conducted an exhaustive search of newspaper and television transcripts on LexisNexis, looking for reports from September 2001 through December 2001 that made any mention of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks.
Regarding Jersey City, which Trump mentioned specifically, we found two uncorroborated and unsourced mentions. Neither begins to approach the scale Trump described.
The Associated Press, on Sept. 17, 2001, described "rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City. But the same report said those rumors were "unfounded."
The Washington Post, on Sept. 18, 2001, published an article that claimed "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." The Post story includes no source for this information, and we found no evidence that any of these allegations ever stuck.
A more rampant rumor of Muslim or Arab-Americans cheering the attacks centered around nearby Paterson, N.J. But that turned out to be just a rumor, spawned by chain emails and perpetuated by shock jock Howard Stern’s radio show.
The Star-Ledger reported that as the rumors spread, "Paterson police rushed to South Main Street, the center of the city's Middle Eastern community."
"When we got there, they were all in prayer," Paterson Police Chief Lawrence Spagnola said.
Three percent of New Jersey residents are Muslim -- the highest of any state -- according to Pew Research Center. Suspected 9/11 terrorists had ties to Jersey City and Paterson. But there is no conclusive evidence that any New Jersey residents celebrated the attacks, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any demonstrations where "thousands and thousands of people" cheered.
Nor is there any evidence Trump saw these events play out in any way, be it on TV or in person. We reached out to Trump’s campaign but didn’t hear back.
What we did find are many stories of Muslims living in New Jersey speaking out against the attacks and bracing themselves for anti-Muslim backlash. For example, Paterson residents put up a banner on the city’s main street that said "The Muslim Community Does Not Support Terrorism.''
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop responded to Trump’s statement on Twitter, saying Trump "has memory issues or willfully distorts the truth."
Our ruling
Trump said he "watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.
This defies basic logic. If thousands and thousands of people were celebrating the 9/11 attacks on American soil, many people beyond Trump would remember it. And in the 21st century, there would be video or visual evidence.
Instead, all we found were a couple of news articles that described rumors of celebrations that were either debunked or unproven.
Trump’s recollection of events in New Jersey in the hours after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks flies in the face of all the evidence we could find. We rate this "PANTS ON FIRE"
-
As growing numbers of governors were expressing opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their state, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised the ante in an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
Trump charged that the Obama administration is deliberately trying to resettle Syrian refugees in states with Republican governors while sparing states that have Democratic governors.
"They send them to the Republicans, not to the Democrats, you know, because they know the problems," Trump said on Nov. 17, 2015. "In California, you have a Democrat as a governor (Jerry Brown). In Florida, you have Rick Scott (a Republican). So you know they send them to the Republicans because you know why would we want to bother the Democrats? It's just insane. Taking these people is absolutely insanity."
Is the administration sending refugees to Republican-led states but not Democratic ones? In a word, no.
Syrian refugee resettlement by state
Before we delve into the numbers, it’s important to note that the Republicans currently have a commanding lead in governorships -- 31 states held by the Republicans compared to just 18 held by the Democrats. (The governor of Alaska is an independent.)
Given this imbalance, it would not be surprising to find Republican-led states ending up with more refugees overall than Democratic-led states. So we will look at not just the raw totals per state but also the average number of resettlements per state for each party.
According to numbers compiled by the Associated Press, states with Republican governors have accepted 1,219 Syrian refugees since Jan. 1, 2015, compared to 605 for states with Democratic governors. That works out to an average of 39 refugees per Republican-led state and 34 refugees per Democratic-led state. Note that the Democratic-led states have not been spared refugees, as Trump claimed.
On a per-state basis, Republican-led states have accepted more Syrian refugees so far in 2015, but not dramatically more. Indeed, only one state accepted more than 200 refugee resettlements -- California, which is led by Brown, a Democrat.
We also looked at State Department data for the most recent month, October 2015.
According to these numbers, Republican-led states accepted 117 Syrian refugees, while Democratic-led states accepted 70. That works out to 3.8 refugees per state for Republicans and slightly more -- 3.9 refugees per state -- with Democratic governors.
So Trump is wrong that Democratic-led states are avoiding resettlement of Syrian refugees. During the most recent period, they are actually accepting more per capita than Republican states are.
Who decides where refugees go?
Even if Trump had been right on the numbers, experts in refugee resettlement said partisan politics plays no role in determining where refugees end up.
Put simply, "the decision on refugee placement is based first on where the refugee might have family ties or other connections, and then largely on the capacity of voluntary agencies to provide case-management services," said Bill Frelick, director of the Human Rights Watch Refugee Rights Program.
Mark Hetfield, the president and CEO of HIAS (originally known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), said that at the beginning of each fiscal year, the State Department works with nine national voluntary agencies -- six faith-based, three nonsectarian -- to allocate the number of refugees per agency.
The nine groups are the Church World Service, the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Episcopal Migration Ministries, HIAS, the International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, and World Relief.
"The capacity at the local level is determined in consultation with local municipalities and state refugee coordinators, who are state officials, along with other community stakeholders," Hetfield said. "The states do not have veto power, but they are very much consulted in the process."
Every Wednesday, Hetfield said, the nine agencies meet to decide which agency will take which newly approved refugees. Files on each refugee household approved for resettlement by the Department of Homeland Security are reviewed with an eye to the size of the household, the gender and age distribution, the educational and employment backgrounds of adult members, whether family members or friends are already living in the United States and are willing to help, and whether there are special considerations, such as a serious health problem.
If an agency has a pre-existing relationship to the household -- such as having resettled other family members in the United States -- the case will typically be assigned to that agency, said Susan Martin, a professor of international migration at Georgetown University. Otherwise, the agency will attempt to allocate new refugee households according to numbers of people the agency feels capable of handling, she said. For instance, an agency will consider whether a local affiliate has adequate language resources available for the newly arrived refugees.
In other words, the agency -- not the administration -- allocates the refugees to a particular city. "The administration does not try to influence the process," Hetfield said.
Some states tend to get higher rates of refugee resettlement because family links are taken into account, Hetfield said. "That is why Michigan has so many refugees resettled there -- it is where Iraqis and Syrians have expressed a preference, due to family or other community links," he said. According to the AP data, Michigan has accepted 195 Syrian refugees this year.
So this, and not the fact that Michigan has a Republican governor, is why the state ranks relatively high in refugee resettlement, he said.
Our ruling
Trump said the federal government is sending refugees to states with governors who are "Republicans, not to the Democrats."
The numbers show that Democratic-led states recently received almost as many refugees as -- and by some calculations, even more refugees than -- Republican-led states on a per capita basis.
Beyond that, though, Trump is wrong to say that refugees are resettled as a form of partisan political vendetta. People who have taken part in the process say that the administration leaves it up to private groups, mostly faith-based groups, to determine where refugees should go, with the decision based on family links, the availability of language resources locally and the ability of local groups to handle the new workload -- not politics. We rate his statement Pants on Fire.
-
Trump's Pants on Fire tweet that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims
By Jon Greenberg on Monday, November 23rd, 2015 at 3:35 p.m.
The crowd surges to greet Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump after he speaks Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015 in Birmingham, Ala. A black activist was roughed up after he interrupted Trump at the rally. (AP)
A day after a black activist was kicked and punched by voters at a Donald Trump rally in Alabama, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics.
The image shows a masked, dark-skinned man with a handgun and a set of points, ostensibly about deaths in 2015:
"Blacks killed by whites -- 2%"
"Blacks killed by police -- 1%"
"Whites killed by police -- 3%"
"Whites killed by whites -- 16%"
"Whites killed by blacks -- 81%"
"Blacks killed by blacks -- 97%’
The image cites the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco"
Here is the image:
2015-11-23 11_56_07-Donald J. Trump on Twitter_ __@SeanSean252_ @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @C.png
None of the numbers are supported by official sources. The figures on black-on-white homicides and white-on-white homicides are wildly inaccurate. And, as several news organizations quickly noted, the "Crime Statistics Bureau" doesn’t exist. We looked for that agency as well and the closest we found in San Francisco were a number of crime scene clean-up services.
Interracial homicides
While the image references 2015, the year is not over, and no official numbers have been released. The latest data comes from the FBI for 2014. This table contrasts Trump’s figures with the official ones.
Trump Number
FBI Number
Error factor
Blacks killed by whites
2%
8%
4 times
Blacks killed by blacks
97%
90%
Just a little off
Whites killed by whites
16%
82%
5.4 times
Whites killed by blacks
81%
15%
5.4 times
The most glaring inaccuracies have to do with white homicide victims. Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true. By overwhelming percentages, whites tend to kill other whites. Similarly, blacks tend to kill other blacks. These trends have been observed for decades.
Killings by police
We also looked at what percentage of each race the police have killed. The official tally of deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers is well known to be incomplete. A study this year by the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that official counts miss between 30 to 40 percent of all police-related deaths.
The Washington Post has worked to fill the gap by compiling a database of police shootings for 2015. The most recent figures from the Post show 414 whites killed, compared to 223 blacks, as of Nov. 23, 2015.
Trump’s tweet said police were responsible for 3 percent of all white homicides and 1 percent of all black homicides. If that were true, then applying those percentages to the FBI report of all homicides in 2014, 91 whites would have died at the hands of police and 25 blacks. That’s a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
In contrast, the Washington Post data show slightly less than two white deaths for each black death.
One of the official, and incomplete, sources for people killed at the hands of police is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violent death database. It shows a ratio of about 1.5 white deaths for each black death, in the period 2009 to 2013.
Trump’s number is about double the most accurate figures we could find. That makes him about 100 percent off.
Parenthetically, the website Little Green Footballs traced the original image back to a Twitter stream that appears to originate in the United Kingdom and features a modified swatiska with the line "Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little moustache."
Our ruling
Trump tweeted an image that made various statistical claims, including that blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims. Almost every number in the image is wrong. The statistics on white victims are exaggerated five-fold. The police-related deaths are off as well.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
-
During the Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colo., Donald Trump faced off with CNBC co-moderator Becky Quick over something Trump had supposedly said about one of Trump’s presidential rivals, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Here’s the exchange:
Quick: "You have talked a little bit about Marco Rubio. I think you called him (Facebook founder) Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator, because he was in favor of the H-1B visa."
Trump: "I never said that. I never said that."
Quick: "So this is an erroneous article the whole way around? … My apologies, I'm sorry."
Trump: "Somebody's really doing some bad fact-checking."
As it turns out, Quick was, uh, too quick to apologize.
We looked at the immigration-policy page of Trump’s campaign website and found the following:
"Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform:
"Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program's lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities."
And here’s a screenshot we took during the debate:
Quick circled back later in the debate, noting that she got her information from Trump’s website. Trump did not offer a rebuttal. We did not receive an immediate response from the Trump camp.
Our ruling
In the debate, Trump said he "never said that" Marco Rubio was Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator. But he may want to check his own website, which says exactly that. Pants on Fire!
-
Ben Carson -- currently the top-polling Republican presidential candidate -- posted a message on Facebook on Nov. 4 to rebut critics who say his lack of experience in elected office would be a serious obstacle to his serving as an effective president.
Soon after it was posted, we began hearing from readers asking us to check one of his claims.
"You are absolutely right — I have no political experience," Carson wrote in the initial version of his post. "The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King. They were willing to risk all they had, even their lives, to be free."
After our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker reviewed Carson’s claim that "every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience" and gave it Four Pinocchios -- the column’s worst rating -- the quote was changed. It now reads, "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected office experience" (emphasis added).
We were already looking into Carson’s initial Facebook comment when the wording change was made. We’ll address both versions here.
The signers had 'no elected office experience'
Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had held elective office before joining the Continental Congress, which produced the declaration. We found a long list, so take a deep breath before you start reading.
They include:
• John Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1770; attended First Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Thomas Jefferson. Represented Albemarle County as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1769-1775
• Benjamin Franklin. Philadelphia councilman, 1748; elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1751.
• John Hancock. Elected to the Boston Assembly, 1766; president of the provincial congress of Massachusetts, c. 1773; elected to the Continental Congress, 1774, and then president of the congress in 1775.
• Samuel Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1765; delegate to the First Continental Congress, 1774.
• Elbridge Gerry. Elected to Massachusetts Legislature, 1773; provincial Congress, 1774.
• Roger Sherman. Elected to Connecticut General Assembly, representing New Milford, 1755-1758 and 1760-1761; elected to various offices representing New Haven in the 1760s and 1770s; elected to the Continental Congress starting in 1774.
• Caesar Rodney. Elected to Delaware Colonial Assembly, 1758-1770 and 1771-1776; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; elected to the Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Taylor. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1764-69; elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• John Morton. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1756-1775; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; president of the provincial assembly, 1775.
• George Ross. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1768-1776; Elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
• James Wilson. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial congress, 1775; elected to the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Thomas McKean. Member of the Delaware Assembly, 1762-79; Delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774.
• Matthew Thornton. Member of the New Hampshire provincial assembly, 1758-1762.
• William Whipple. Elected to New Hampshire provincial congress, 1775 and 1776.
• Stephen Hopkins. Speaker of the Rhode Island Assembly,1750s; member of the Continental Congress beginning in 1774.
• Lewis Morris. Member of New York provincial legislature; delegate to the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Philip Livingston. Alderman, New York City.
• Carter Braxton. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1770-1785; delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-75.
• Thomas Nelson Jr. Member of the House of Burgesses, 1774; Virginia provincial convention, 1775.
• Francis Lightfoot Lee. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses 1758-1775; elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• Benjamin Harrison. Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1764; member of the Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Wythe. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1755-65.
• William Hooper. Elected to general assembly of North Carolina, 1773; member of Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Joseph Hewes. Member of the colonial assembly of North Carolina, 1766-1775; member of new provincial assembly, 1775; elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
• John Hart. Member of the New Jersey Assembly, 1761-1771; member of provincial assembly, 1775; elected to the Continental Congress, 1776.
• William Williams. Town clerk, selectman, provincial representative, elected state legislator, delegate to colonial conferences, 1770s.
• William Paca. Delegate to the Maryland Legislature, 1771; elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
That’s at least 28 of the 56 signers -- about half, and we were conservative in who we counted. The real number may be higher.
Either way, Carson’s original claim, that "every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience," is way, way off.
The signers had 'no federal elected office experience'
The edit Carson made to the Facebook post doesn’t help his case, since there was no federal government before the Declaration of Independence was signed. This makes his entire claim illogical, experts say,
"Of course they did not have federal elected office experience because there was no federal government at the time -- we were a British colony," said Michael Gerhardt, scholar in residence at the National Constitution Center and professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina.
"It does not make sense to use the term ‘federal’ when no federal government existed," agreed Danielle Allen, a political theorist and author of Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. "The signers of the declaration very often had leading political experience in their colony or, as they called them, in their ‘countries.’ "
Jan Lewis, a professor of history at Rutgers University-Newark and the author of The Pursuit of Happiness: Family and Values in Jefferson’s Virginia, finds Carson’s claim ridiculous.
"It makes about as much sense as saying none of them had been to the moon," Lewis said. "Of course they hadn't, because it was an impossibility at that time. No one could possibly serve in the federal government before there was a federal government, at least in the absence of time travel."
Carson’s staff did not respond to an inquiry for this article.
Our ruling
Both the initial and the revised versions of Carson’s claim are far off base. About half or more of the declaration’s signers had held elective office previously, a reality that severely undercuts Carson’s overall point that the drafting of the Declaration of Independence showed how a lack of political experience can produce landmark political achievements. As for his later addition of "federal" to the comment, this makes the claim nonsensical, since there was no federal government prior to the signing of the declaration.
We rate Carson’s claim Pants on Fire.
-
That's it? Seriously?
-
It sounds like the opening to a joke: A young Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Russian President Vladimir Putin walk into a Soviet-era Moscow university …
But it’s a claim that was made with a straight face by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson -- on national television, three times.
First, on the Oct. 5, 2015, edition of the Fox News show Hannity, Carson said Putin’s "relationships go way, way, way, way back, you know? 1968 at Patrice Lumumba University -- that's when Putin first got to know the Ali Khamenei, and also Mahmoud Abbas."
Then, on Oct. 8, Carson said much the same thing to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.
Putin "already has substantial ties in the Middle East," Carson said. "In the class of 1968 at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, Mahmoud Abbas was one of the members of that class, and so was Ali Khamenei. And that's where they first established relationships with the young Vladimir Putin."
And then again to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC on Oct. 9: Putin "has longstanding relationships with people in that area. In the class of 1968 at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, Mahmoud Abbas was in that class, and so was Ali Khamenei. And that was when they first became familiar with Putin."
Really? Three future world leaders -- and three people many Americans consider adversaries -- found themselves kicking around a university in Moscow in 1968, building ties that would serve them decades later? We had to check it out.
When we asked Carson’s staff whether they had any supporting evidence, aide Ying Ma wrote back, "Thanks for your inquiry. We are not in the habit of providing Googling support to the media. If there is a specific aspect of Dr. Carson's statement that you wish to challenge, please let us know and we can go from there."
We did have difficulty finding any support for the claim, and we forwarded what we found to the campaign but did not hear back.
Here’s a rundown, point by point.
Mahmoud Abbas
The portion of the claim dealing with Abbas has the most supporting evidence, but even here it’s not all that clear-cut.
It’s fairly well documented that Abbas -- the head of the West Bank-based Palestinian government -- did do some academic work in the Soviet Union.
This part of Abbas’ biography gained some attention in 1995, when Abbas became a key Palestinian figure in the Oslo peace accords. Reports surfaced that Abbas had written a doctoral thesis in the early 1980s titled, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and the Zionist Movement." Critics, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, criticized the thesis for seeming to minimize the Holocaust, and he later distanced himself from some of its conclusions.
The importance of Abbas’ thesis for our fact-check is that it was presented at a Soviet university, variously described as Oriental College, the Institute of Oriental Studies or Moscow State University. Oddly, Wikipedia is the only source that cites Patrice Lumumba University, an institution of higher education in Moscow that was designed to serve an international student clientele and which has been linked by some observers to the KGB. (It’s now known as Peoples' Friendship University.)
We did track down one possibly credible source placing Abbas at Lumumba -- a 2010 article from Ria Novosti, a state-owned news agency. "Contrary to popular myths, (Patrice Lumumba University) released from its walls not too many successful politicians -- about a dozen future ministers and only two future leaders of their countries," the article said. In addition to a president of Guyana, the article cited Abbas, "who graduated from the law faculty," the article said.
Still, a degree from Patrice Lumumba doesn’t appear in most biographies of Abbas. He is more often listed as having earned his law degree (or in some tellings, a bachelor’s degree) from the University of Damascus. In addition, most bios place Abbas working for Palestinian organizations in 1967 and 1968. He would have been 33 in 1968, the year Carson cited.
So what do we know about Abbas? We know for sure that he took "short visits" to Moscow to defend his doctoral thesis around 1982 (where, apparently, "he always drank coffee with cardamom," according to a 2005 Russian media account by a former professor). It’s also conceivable that Abbas had some connection with Patrice Lumumba University, though the evidence of that is equivocal.
But there’s no hard evidence that Abbas was at Lumumba in 1968, which is what Carson said.
Ali Khamenei
There is no mention in the official biography of Iran’s supreme leader that he ever studied in the Soviet Union, and the timeline that’s known would have made it difficult for him to have done so.
We did not hear back from the Iranian mission to the United Nations, but Ali Alfoneh, a researcher at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, looked into the question in 2012 when he was at the American Enterprise Institute. He wrote, "According to Khamenei’s official biography, he travelled to Iraq in 1957 to study at the Theological Seminary in Najaf. Since the People’s Friendship University was first established (as Lumumba) in 1960, the young Khamenei could not have used his journey to Iraq as a cover for his studies in the Soviet Union."
On the other hand, Alfoneh continued, Khamenei’s biography says he spent a "clandestine life" in Tehran between March 1966 and March 1967, after which he was arrested by the police and imprisoned. The existence of this "clandestine" period may have fed the rumor that he spent time studying in Moscow. Certainly a period studying in the "godless" Soviet Union would be something Khamenei -- the head of a theocracy -- would want to keep under wraps.
In an interview, Alfoneh said he isn’t convinced of the Khamenei-in-the-Soviet-Union claim. "I'm very skeptical," he said.
So where did this rumor come from?
The allegations garnered attention in 2010 when RT, a network tightly controlled by Putin’s Kremlin, aired a piece about the 50th anniversary of Peoples' Friendship University and mentioned in passing that Khamenei was an alumnus. (We tried to contact the university, but didn’t get a response. Neither Abbas nor Khamenei is listed among the school’s "eminent graduates.")
The earlier citations of this claim aren’t well sourced, either. It appears to have surfaced initially in a 1989 column by Smith Hempstone, a journalist and future U.S. ambassador to Kenya, that ran in a small, western Pennsylvania newspaper. We also found a brief article in a Russian newspaper from 2003 that mentions the claim in passing. None of these approximate a primary source.
A half-dozen experts on the region unanimously told us that they doubted Khamenei ever studied in the Soviet Union -- or that he did so in 1968, when he would have been 29.
"I've never seen it corroborated," said Karim Sadjadpour, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
John Limbert, a professor of international affairs at the U.S. Naval Academy, called the idea "bizarre."
And David Houghton, a senior lecturer in the defense studies department at King’s College of London, called it "unlikely in the absolute extreme."
"The Soviet Union is the absolute last place where one could expect to find Khamenei at any stage in his career, and I personally do not believe that he ever studied there or had any links to Putin," Houghton said. "It looks like a rather daft conspiracy theory to me."
Vladimir Putin
The biggest problem for the Putin portion of Carson’s claim is the calendar: In 1968, Putin would have been 16 years old.
According to his official biography, "in 1960-1968, Vladimir Putin attended Primary School No. 193 in Leningrad. After the eighth grade, he entered High School No. 281, a chemistry-focused magnet school under the aegis of a technology institute, completing his studies there in 1970."
"It’s pretty difficult to imagine that he could have met Messrs. Abbas and Khamenei under any circumstances at age 16 in Moscow, unless he ran into them randomly on the street on some kind of school or family trip — if, indeed, they were actually there," said Fiona Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution.
In addition, Putin grew up in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). That is a 9-to-10-hour car ride from Moscow and Patrice Lumumba University.
"He studied between 1970 and 1975 in the law faculty of Leningrad State University," said Richard Sakwa, a professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent. "The claim by Ben Carson is garbled rubbish."
A defense
The closest we came to any of this making sense was an interview with Cliff Kincaid, who runs a group called America’s Survival, Inc. Kincaid published a paper titled, "Communists and Muslims: The Hidden Hand of the KGB" that raises many of these claims.
Kincaid made the case that Carson was saying Abbas and Khamenei could have been agents of the KGB, and if they were, Putin, who rose to colonel in the KGB, would have known them.
"Carson was clearly saying that Putin, as a former KGB colonel and later head of the FSB, the new name for the KGB, would have knowledge of Abbas and Khamenei attending Patrice Lumumba University, a KGB-controlled institution," Kincaid told PolitiFact. "That made them subject to KGB influence, if not KGB agents. Whether Putin personally met them in his younger years is beside the point. … Please report these facts rather than nitpick Carson on the ages of the various players."
We hereby report those "facts." Still, this isn’t what Carson said.
Our ruling
Carson said, "In the class of 1968 at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, Mahmoud Abbas was one of the members of that class, and so was Ali Khamenei. And that's where they first established relationships with the young Vladimir Putin."
This is one of the more bizarre claims we’ve heard so far in the 2016 presidential campaign, and that’s saying something.
Abbas may have attended the university, though we don’t know for sure, or when. No credible evidence has yet surfaced to place Khamenei as a student in the Soviet Union -- ever, much less in close proximity to Abbas, or in 1968. And Putin would have been a teenager in 1968, attending school 450 miles away.
The idea that the three men developed lifelong ties as students in the late-1960s-era Soviet Union is ridiculous. Pants on Fire!
After the Fact
Carson suggests academic source for Putin claim
Added on Nov. 5, 2015, 2:31 p.m.
In a telephone interview with the Miami Herald on Nov. 4, 2015, Carson said his source for this claim was a "Middle Eastern scholar at a university in Texas who is actually writing a book about it right now and translating it into English and should be out next year. He says he has got yearbook information and everything to demonstrate both Abbas and Khamenei were there at that time."
When asked the name of the scholar, Carson said said: "I would have to go back and look. It was a middle eastern kind" of name.
Carson tells CBN his source are government "advisors," including CIA
Added on Oct. 10, 2015, 4:56 p.m.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson appears on CBN's the 700 Club.
Shortly after our fact-check appeared, CBN News posted an article about Carson’s appearance on the Christian Broadcasting Network show, the 700 Club. It reported that when Carson was asked for the source of the Abbas-Khamenei-Putin claim in a follow-up interview with CBN News, "Dr. Carson would not disclose his sources, but told CBN News he learned about the ties between the three leaders from advisors across the government, including the CIA." This clashes with the earlier suggestion by Carson’s press staff to PolitiFact that the evidence for the claim could be found by "Googling." For the record, we have found at least three additional instances beyond the CBN interview in which Carson made virtually identical claims – at a private fundraiser in West Des Moines, Iowa, on Oct. 1, to Newsmax TV on Oct. 8, and at a speech to the National Press Club on Oct. 9.
-
That's it? Seriously?
no, there's more, but judging by your response, it begs the question.. what's the point?
-
Carson? Absolutely not a liar.
Carson may actually believe most or all of what he says. That's the scary version. If he literally believes the pyramids were full of grain and other historical distortion - he is dangerous thru ignorance.
I don't really believe he buys into the 6000 year old earth thing. No way. He pushes it to his base, but there is no way he is that devoid of science. evolution is basis of biology, which is the basis of medicine. No way he just believes dogs and wolves were magically created on the same day. No way he doesn't make these connections.
-
Carson may actually believe most or all of what he says. That's the scary version. If he literally believes the pyramids were full of grain and other historical distortion - he is dangerous thru ignorance.
I don't really believe he buys into the 6000 year old earth thing. No way. He pushes it to his base, but there is no way he is that devoid of science. evolution is basis of biology, which is the basis of medicine. No way he just believes dogs and wolves were magically created on the same day. No way he doesn't make these connections.
Carson DOES NOT believe the earth is 6000 years old. Period.
-
Zero is acceptable.
But politifact is a farce.
and so you read their information, how they came to their conclusion and you determined it was wrong? Or did you simply assume its a 'farce"? Serious question
-
no, there's more, but judging by your response, it begs the question.. what's the point?
Dude. Posting walls of text, that you probably haven't read, doesn't prove your point.
Plus I have internet ADD. Cliff's Notes. :)
-
And you believe Trump watched 1000's and 1000's of Arabs IN New Jersey celebrating on TV as the towers fell?
-
and so you read their information, how they came to their conclusion and you determined it was wrong? Or did you simply assume its a 'farce"? Serious question
I've read enough of their material to conclude they are a biased and ironically non-factual rag.
-
The way you analyze information that contradicts your firmly held belief.. it is no wonder you feel the way you do, and will likely continue to feel that way.
-
so can I assume from your lack of an answer, you believe Trump was telling the truth?
-
The way you analyze information that contradicts your firmly held belief.. it is no wonder you feel the way you do, and will likely continue to feel that way.
Yep. Reading, researching, using common sense, interaction with numerous people from all walks of life from all over the world. Gives you a pretty good worldview. Life experience can do that.
-
so can I assume from your lack of an answer, you believe Trump was telling the truth?
No. I assume, like I said earlier, that Trump pulls stuff out of his rear end. I don't think he thinks about many of the things that come out of his mouth. Is he deliberately misstating facts? Possibly. Is he just speaking without thinking, regardless of the facts? More likely.
Neither one is acceptable.
-
No. I assume, like I said earlier, that Trump pulls stuff out of his rear end. I don't think he thinks about many of the things that come out of his mouth. Is he deliberately misstating facts? Possibly. Is he just speaking without thinking, regardless of the facts? More likely.
Neither one is acceptable.
Is speaking untrue things without thinking lying I suppose is the question.. I would say yes
-
Is speaking untrue things without thinking lying I suppose is the question.. I would say yes
No. Lying is making statement that is false, which the person knows to be false at the time they make it. Like Hillary and the youtube video. Or Obama saying you can keep your doctor, while knowing he would be drafting administrative rules making that impossible. Or telling members of Congress the individual mandate was not a tax to secure their votes for Obamacare, knowing he would be arguing in court that it is a tax.
-
No. Lying is making statement that is false, which the person knows to be false at the time they make it. Like Hillary and the youtube video. Or Obama saying you can keep your doctor, while knowing he would be drafting administrative rules making that impossible. Or telling members of Congress the individual mandate was not a tax to secure their votes for Obamacare, knowing he would be arguing in court that it is a tax.
So in your mind.. Trump didn't know he didn't see Arabs in New Jersey celebrating on TV as the towers fell? He confused New Jersey with another country perhaps? And when called on it he didn't say "Well, let me think about that" he continued to stand by it.. but THAT'S not lying in your book? Wish you were one of my parents when I was growing up...
-
So in your mind.. Trump didn't know he didn't see Arabs in New Jersey celebrating on TV as the towers fell? He confused New Jersey with another country perhaps? And when called on it he didn't say "Well, let me think about that" he continued to stand by it.. but THAT'S not lying in your book?
I have no idea what he saw. Maybe he did see people celebrating? I said he could be lying. I don't know. I just don't think this is a very good example, particularly if you're trying to compare it to Obama and Hillary.
-
I have no idea what he saw. Maybe he did see people celebrating? I said he could be lying. I don't know. I just don't think this is a very good example, particularly if you're trying to compare it to Obama and Hillary.
Ok, lets play the game.. Maybe Obama was told people could keep their doctors in his briefings.. maybe he fully expected that people could keep their doctors and he was just as surprised as anyone that you couldn't in some cases?
-
Ok, lets play the game.. Maybe Obama was told people could keep their doctors in his briefings.. maybe he fully expected that people could keep their doctors and he was just as surprised as anyone that you couldn't in some cases?
No. Anyone who knows about the administrative rule making process by government departments, as Obama would, knows that process takes time. And they know those formulation of those rules had to take place at or before the time Obama pushing Obamacare.
Then there are people like Gruber who admitted they knew this was going to happen.
-
No. Anyone who knows about the administrative rule making process by government departments, as Obama would, knows that process takes time. And they know those formulation of those rules had to take place at or before the time Obama pushing Obamacare.
Then there are people like Gruber who admitted they knew this was going to happen.
so Obama, knowing he was lying, lied, also knowing it would be uncovered later with video of him lying.... But trump .... who said he saw Arab Americans in New Jersey protesting by the 1000's as the towers fell, and was called on it but continued to state it happened, probably was just talking out his ass... I think I'm starting to grasp the rules of this...
-
I don't know about thousands, but I saw footage of people cheering it, and it was in America. Might have been only a few, but I remember a woman in a hijab cheering and clasping her hands together upon seeing the attacks unfold.
-
Who is lying? Donald Trump, or the NYPD?
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump twice repeated over the weekend that he saw people cheering in New Jersey after the September 11 attacks -- but his claims are being widely disputed as false.
Trump first made the claim at a campaign rally in Alabama on Saturday, where he said he "watched the World Trade Center go down" and watched in New Jersey, "as thousands of people were cheering as the building was coming down."
He doubled down on those claims in an interview Sunday with ABC's "This Week," even as George Stephanopoulos pushed back.
"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations," Trump said. "They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down."
"Police say it didn't happen," Stephanopoulos pressed, to which Trump said he saw it himself on television.
Trump claimed: "It was well covered at the time."
But numerous publications and local politicians have said Trump is incorrect.
Both Politifact and The Washington Post's Fact Checker analyzed Trump's claim. Politifact rated it "pants on fire" and The Washington Post gave it "four Pinocchios."
Neither outlet could find any news reports that corroborate Trump's account of events. There were a few reports of rumors that there were celebrations in New Jersey, along with images of Palestinians celebrating overseas that were broadcast locally.
A September 17, 2001, an Associated Press story referred to "unfounded ... rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City, New Jersey.
And in a September 18, 2001, article, The Washington Post wrote that "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." But there was no source for the information and there is no evidence of anything coming of the questioning.
240 you are such a democrat guy. Your narratives are weak.
-
And you believe Trump watched 1000's and 1000's of Arabs IN New Jersey celebrating on TV as the towers fell?
Trump said it happened. thousands in jersey city.
-
240 you are such a democrat guy. Your narratives are weak.
trump claimed he say thousands of people cheering 911. in jersey city.
Nobody else saw this.
-
Ben Carson --
Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience.
Massively false. Didn't he write a freaking book about the Constitution?
He's either brain damaged or very stupid, to say this.
-
so Obama, knowing he was lying, lied, also knowing it would be uncovered later with video of him lying.... But trump .... who said he saw Arab Americans in New Jersey protesting by the 1000's as the towers fell, and was called on it but continued to state it happened, probably was just talking out his ass... I think I'm starting to grasp the rules of this...
Correct about Obama, except he doesn't care if he lies. He knows his supporters will just bend over, take it up he tailpipe, and still support him. And he has the votes to prove it.
Trump? Like I said, maybe he is lying, maybe he is embellishing, or maybe he really did see people cheering? I have no idea. I'm not defending Trump, but the fact others didn't see what he claims to have seen doesn't by itself make him a liar. Pretty weak example.
-
Trump? Like I said, maybe he is lying, maybe he is embellishing, or maybe he really did see people cheering? I have no idea. I'm not defending Trump, but the fact others didn't see what he claims to have seen doesn't by itself make him a liar. Pretty weak example.
He said thousands. Thousands. Nobody else in america saw "thousands".
Since the whole OReilly thing, Repubs have discovered an awesome loophole in lying known as "embellishment".
OReilly claims he heard a famous suicide... just embellishing. Carson claims many things which aren't true... embellisment.
yet when hilary or obama does it, they suddenly shriek and wet their panties.
-
Were there videos played on the news right after 9/11, showing crowds of people "celebrating" overseas? I don't remember.
And I noticed that the Israelis who were seen dancing and laughing in Jersey City as the towers burned, were sometimes referred to as "middle eastern men" in reports.
Not to pardon anyone, but I can see how these things could get scrambled fairly easily.
-
Let's be clear. Muslims openly celebrating within our borders DID NOT HAPPEN. A video surfaced of children in Gaza City celebrating the attacks. Not that I am condoning their celebration, but
one can certainly understand their how they came to feel the way they do.
-
Let's be clear. Muslims openly celebrating within our borders DID NOT HAPPEN. A video surfaced of children in Gaza City celebrating the attacks. Not that I am condoning their celebration, but
one can certainly understand their how they came to feel the way they do.
And yet the undeniable case of public celebrating, here, involved Israelis.
Crazy world, I tell you.
-
thousands. he said it twice. in jersey city.
it's a pretty big detail to get wrong.
-
And yet the undeniable case of public celebrating, here, involved Israelis.
Crazy world, I tell you.
Almost an unspeakable truth if you want to be elected to public office in this country. Puerto Rico is to us like we are to Israel. :)
-
Almost an unspeakable truth if you want to be elected to public office in this country. Puerto Rico is to us like we are to Israel. :)
Thing that gets me, is that the guy who ran that moving company wasn't made to answer why he immediately abandoned it as he did.
-
Howard Stern Caller Confirms Trump: Muslims Did Cheer After 9/11 [Call From September 12, 2001]
On September 12, 2001 a woman calls on the howard stern and confirms trump about muslims cheering after 9/11. In South Paterson New Jersey, Her Husband who was a verizon employee saw Muslims Cheering.
-
3rd hand info....
pics vids?
-
It's iffy. I remember the initial reports of cheering, they were all over the place. But that's conspiracy theory territory... the official story is that it didn't happen.
Trump tends to drop these CTer hints, from CT sources, into his speeches. Then he cites "seeing them on TV" when in reality, the places these things showed up was youtube CTer documentaries.
Ari Fleischer , former White House press secretary during the Bush administration, told CNN that Trump sounds like a "truther". He's right. Trump spent a lifetime creating buildings. Trump is a CTer on the birther issue, one with far fewer supporters/evidence than the 911 CTs.
Imagine if Trump was a 911 truther. This is the 2nd time he's done it. The first time he blamed "the buildings coming down" during Bush's presidency. Not "we were attacked" - just "buildings coming down". THAT IS TRUTHER TALK. Maybe that's why he has the GOP base so scared. I've long moved on from paying attention to 911 CTs. It was interesting, but it's history now. I haven't been to the CT board in a year or two lol.
Imagine a truther winning the GOp nomination lol. too funny.