fake-news-watchdog

[fake-news-watchdog]

https://www.mcall.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-experts-say-about-protests-depends-20200706-5mzu4iqm3nhgnghbmtizuezj24-story.html

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html

https://nypost.com/2020/06/15/coronavirus-contact-tracers-wont-ask-if-new-yorkers-attended-protests/

All articles accusing Trump of pushing dangerous info about hydroxychloraquine

All articles saying the BLM protests didn't affect covid

Are hereby deemed

Fake News

[fake-news-watchdog]

[fake-news-watchdog]

[fake-news-watchdog]

(cartoon by Christopher Weyant)

[fake-news-watchdog]

Ok. Did they not originally say it was non-communicable?

They said that.

To claim otherwise, is to mislead

The Fake news has been so blatant during covid-19 even I am surprised

[fake-news-watchdog]

[fake-news-watchdog]

That part of the quote is in there, and yes if you read that on it's own it would appear what that he was talking about chemical disinfectant. Disinfectant can be used as an adjective to refer to ANYTHING that destroys germs. It can also be used to refer to chemical disinfectant.

But no, when you read the full quote it is incredibly obvious that The disinfectant is referring to UV light, particularly when you see he ends the quote by saying "The whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that's pretty powerful". Without the ending you're right its ambiguous. But I think he said the ending specifically to clarify what he was talking about... again, the light

You remember Trump said it was amazing how the disinfectant killed germs... IN ONE MINUTE

It is INCREDIBLY obvious when the full quote is used that Trump was referring to specifically UV Iight, which is already used to treat viral infections.

At no point did Trump mention Bleach, Lysol, or anything of the sort. When read in context, it is clear that by “the disinfectant” was referring to “the light”

[fake-news-watchdog]

It is INCREDIBLY obvious when the full quote is used that Trump was referring to specifically UV Iight, which is already used to treat viral infections. At no point did Trump mention Bleach, Lysol, or anything of the sort. When read in context, it is clear that by “the disinfectant” was referring to “the light”

[fake-news-watchdog]

The Fake news has been so blatant during covid-19 even I am surprised

[fake-news-watchdog]

The Repeal Act was literally written with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of removing every qualification you just listed, that's the point of this bill. There would no longer be any need for a medical justification for a third trimester abortion

Do you guys understand how terrible your "rebukes to this have been"

Like imagine this

Republicans in congress introduce a bill that literally says in the text "killing homeless people is legal now"

And then someone says "Do you know what's going go happen? Homeless people will be killed"

And then a fact check says "False, it is not legal to kill homeless people"

That's literally what the fact check was saying, and that's what you and everyone else posting "rebuttals" to my post have been saying.

Its irrelevant what the law IS Trump was talking about what the law WOULD BE. I cannot fathom how this is a tough concept

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

Read the bill or stop commenting. Your claims are not what the text of the bill says. The bill specifies in no way shape or form that the infant must be "incompatible with life" it says visible signs of viability. Visible. No tests, no imaging, just visible. You dont take it off life support after a certain period, if there are no signs at the moment you take it out, you don't have to put it on life support to begin with

As you clearly have not read the bill (if you had you would know what you have said is utterly false) your arguments are nothing but

#FAKE NEWS

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

Read the bill or stop commenting final offer. The bill says NONE OF THAT.

The bill says abortion until the point of birth, and if the "result" they call it (how sick) shows visible signs of viability they must resuscitate it

You clearly have not read a single solitary sentence of the bill, your claims about what it does and does not say are utterly and completely worthless, because without reading it, you wouldn't fuc*ing know, now would you

You, like your fact checker have done 0 research. We aren't discussing healthy babies? Prove it, show me the text of the bill that proves your point, you can't, because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

You are arguing as a knee jerk reaction, you decided what the bill did and did not say without ever looking at it

You, mother by choice, are

#Fake News

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

To deny life support for someone who could survive yes you would be killing them. Pro-choice people always claim abortion isnt a slippery slope yet always somehow end back up at "is it REALLY murder if we let adults who could live die"

Fact: This bill would have allowed that

Fact: The fact checkers omitted that

If you actually read my original post I said that the quote should be labeled as MIXTURE

Not as TRUE

It is a FACT that the organization who wrote that check removed that information. That is bias. That is fake news. End of story.

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

That's. What. Cutting. Life. Support. To. A. Baby. Is. Period

In addition the text of the bill is very vague and lenient in terms of what determines viability, the text says life support is only required to be utilized if "there is any clearly visible evidence of viability."

It makes no specifications as to what equates to visibility other than clearly visible. I have yet to see a clearly visible heartbeat.

So did you write these posts with voice to text? Because if you could read, I'd assume you would read the bill you're advocating for

Until then I'd have to qualify you as #Fake News

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

The Repeal Act did

As I said, politico cut out any and all context about the bill Northam was referring to. The Repeal Act would allow abortion up until the point of birth

FOR. ANY. REASON.

Under the repeal act that Northam was advocating for, the baby does not need to be in any way shape or form disabled, sick, or in danger.

You can watch other sponsors of the bill admit that

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/outrage-after-virginia-abortion-bill-sponsor-admits-pregnancies-could-be-terminated-up-until-birth

Yes I know its FOX News but it is also a VIDEO you cannot dismiss a video of the bill being debated by lawmakers as false

And this is exactly the point I'm making, ALL of your arguments as to why Trump was totally false hold up ONLY if you omit the bill the comments were directed at WHICH THE FACT-CHECKERS DID

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

While I'd disagree with that, as he said the baby would be resuscitated and THEN a discussion would take place, its fundamentally irrelevant, the point is the "fact checker" actively cut out the context of Trump's remarks and deliberately falsely framed them, if the rating was "mixture" and the fact check said "While what Trump claims happens is not currently in practice, Trump was referencing heavily ambiguous remarks by Gov Ralph Northam on The Repeal Act, a bill which would legalize abortion up until the point of birth"

That would have been a fair fact check. But ALL of that context was cut out. Meaning this fact check is, FAKE NEWS

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across

[fake-news-watchdog]

Trump was directly referencing a bill that was at the time trying to be passed, leaving out this crucial information falsely frames Trump and what he was trying to get across