Fact checking Trump's 'speech' aka rant
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/fact-checking-trump-s-marathon-state-of-the-union-speech-20260225-p5o5hk.html
41-45, F
dumasme · 51-55, M
Left-Leaning coverage frames the State of the Union as riddled with "contradiction" and "false and misleading claims," using terms like "fantasy" and "unhinged" while highlighting Democratic figures "trashing" the speech.
Right-Leaning outlets, conversely, emphasize Trump's declaration that the union is "strong" and his focus on "bringing faith back into American life," often dismissing fact-checking as "pedantic" or "self-parody.
Center-Leaning reports present both sides, noting "reckless" Democratic criticisms while also identifying "false and misleading claims" without the left's overt editorializing.
While all acknowledge the speech's length and topics like the economy and immigration, the core divergence lies in the portrayal of Trump's veracity and the legitimacy of critical scrutiny, reflecting broader ideological divides over presidential accountability.
Right-Leaning outlets, conversely, emphasize Trump's declaration that the union is "strong" and his focus on "bringing faith back into American life," often dismissing fact-checking as "pedantic" or "self-parody.
Center-Leaning reports present both sides, noting "reckless" Democratic criticisms while also identifying "false and misleading claims" without the left's overt editorializing.
While all acknowledge the speech's length and topics like the economy and immigration, the core divergence lies in the portrayal of Trump's veracity and the legitimacy of critical scrutiny, reflecting broader ideological divides over presidential accountability.
View 6 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BohoBabe · M
Yeah, I'm good. I stopped fact-checking Trump back in 2016.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Subscription. 🫤
Not worth even figuring a way around it either. Never heard of the site. Silly of a unknown site to have a subscription. Not like it's the WSJ or the NYT.
Not worth even figuring a way around it either. Never heard of the site. Silly of a unknown site to have a subscription. Not like it's the WSJ or the NYT.
jackjjackson · M
It’s called opposition research. Smart. @DeWayfarer
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@jackjjackson sorry wrong post and different jack*.🫤
jackjjackson · M
ElwoodBlues · M
@Thinkerbell says
Now, now, Tex, let's be fair...
Now, now, Tink, let's be fair... throwing mud on Biden & Harris really isn't going to clean up tRump's mess in the middle east, is it? Remember how you assured us that tRump's bunker buster bombs in June had set Iran's nuclear program back years? Are you ready to eat that crow???"Iran's Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News"
Source: The White House, June 25, 2025
ElwoodBlues · M
@BohoBabe Yep, the proper comparison is between 2020 & 2024, and it erases most of sttinker's claims.
Survey revealed an interesting effect. Many who were interviewed stated that they didn't think "other Americans" were ready to vote for a woman. They wouldn't own those views themselves, but they happily projected them on others. In sort, plain old sexism played a major part.
@Thinkerbell Why didn't Smith get tRump to trial? Because tRump's legal team was expert at introducing procedural delays and delays and delays, particularly regarding the immunity question. I need hardly point out that delaying is NOT the tactic of a man who wants to prove his innocence.
Regardless of the delays, it didn't take a court decision for republicans to chant "lock her up!" They didn't need any legal process to decide upon guilt. So it's hypocritical in the extreme to pretend that republicans cared about court verdicts. In fact, they roundly dismissed the 34 guilty verdicts in tRump's falsifying business documents trial. Nope, it wasn't about guilty verdicts at all.
A comparison of the 2020 vs the 2024 elections is revealing. In 2020, Joe Biden won with 81,283.501 popular votes and 306 electoral votes. For Donald Trump, it was 74,223,975 popular votes and 232 electoral votes.
In 2024, Trump won with 76,917,038 popular votes and 312 electoral votes. For Kamala Harris it was 74,441,439 popular votes and 226 electoral votes.
In 2024, Trump won with 76,917,038 popular votes and 312 electoral votes. For Kamala Harris it was 74,441,439 popular votes and 226 electoral votes.
Survey revealed an interesting effect. Many who were interviewed stated that they didn't think "other Americans" were ready to vote for a woman. They wouldn't own those views themselves, but they happily projected them on others. In sort, plain old sexism played a major part.
@Thinkerbell Why didn't Smith get tRump to trial? Because tRump's legal team was expert at introducing procedural delays and delays and delays, particularly regarding the immunity question. I need hardly point out that delaying is NOT the tactic of a man who wants to prove his innocence.
Regardless of the delays, it didn't take a court decision for republicans to chant "lock her up!" They didn't need any legal process to decide upon guilt. So it's hypocritical in the extreme to pretend that republicans cared about court verdicts. In fact, they roundly dismissed the 34 guilty verdicts in tRump's falsifying business documents trial. Nope, it wasn't about guilty verdicts at all.
BohoBabe · M
@ElwoodBlues The Democrats tried to suppress this, but the "autopsy" showed that the reason they lost is because they underestimated how many people weren't going to vote because they disliked both candidates, and the main reason people disliked Harris was over her support for the genocide.
America is at a point where one party is fully fascist, and the only party that can stop them is unwilling to break with Israel. It's a classic example of how Capitalism gets in the way of Democracy. America is both capitalist and democratic. But the capitalist element is constantly marginalizing the democratic element. In the past, this would be dealt with by social programs that would reign Capitalism in. But this time, we need that, plus a rejection of Zionism, which 90% of Democrats aren't willing to do.
America is at a point where one party is fully fascist, and the only party that can stop them is unwilling to break with Israel. It's a classic example of how Capitalism gets in the way of Democracy. America is both capitalist and democratic. But the capitalist element is constantly marginalizing the democratic element. In the past, this would be dealt with by social programs that would reign Capitalism in. But this time, we need that, plus a rejection of Zionism, which 90% of Democrats aren't willing to do.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@ElwoodBlues
The immunity question was not a "procedural delay," it was a point of defense. And in any case, Smith should have been smart enough to anticipate any "delays" in framing his case in the first place.
It is not required of a defendant to prove his or her innocence; it is required of a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
— Law 101
And not just Republicans, as you (characteristically) omitted to mention. The biased prosecutors and judges laid it on too thick to get enough people of all political stripes to vote for Harris, as did the complicit media that you were kind enough to post pictures of their screaming headlines. 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣
"Why didn't Smith get tRump to trial? Because tRump's legal team was expert at introducing procedural delays and delays and delays, particularly regarding the immunity question."
The immunity question was not a "procedural delay," it was a point of defense. And in any case, Smith should have been smart enough to anticipate any "delays" in framing his case in the first place.
"I need hardly point out that delaying is NOT the tactic of a man who wants to prove his innocence."
It is not required of a defendant to prove his or her innocence; it is required of a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
— Law 101
"In fact, they [Republicans] roundly dismissed the 34 guilty verdicts in tRump's falsifying business documents trial."
And not just Republicans, as you (characteristically) omitted to mention. The biased prosecutors and judges laid it on too thick to get enough people of all political stripes to vote for Harris, as did the complicit media that you were kind enough to post pictures of their screaming headlines. 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣
