That's amusing. Where has you're need for unbiased numbers stats and facts been on this and every thread that throws accusations towards Trump. That was rhetorical. The answer is nowhere, because if it fits you're narrative you don't care to check it. That's the issue with 90% of the politics on this forum. People don't care to check facts that fit their views. But that's not politics, it's circle jerking. I'll go find you those stats, might take me a bit. Gotta smoke and eat and actually put on pants. "Black Project..?"
FACTS. Its documented the money came from the charity. He didn't shift anything. He Stole, as did tRump Jr. Its also documented tRump hasn't donated to the charity since 2008. 10 years ago. A Decade. WHat happened is 100% ILLEGAL, and is also a "JAILABLE OFFENSE" if they are guilty of Tax Evasion.
Also there have been no facts presented. Just copy and paste without a link by less than unreliable members. "Black Project..?"
I substantiate the majority of my posts with sources and facts. To say otherwise is disingenuous. Somewhere I even showed how much money was used by the campaign and even the sources of said money. You may be getting forgetful.
Is Donald Trump self-funding his campaign? Sort of That's left leaning politifact. I'll grab some more lata. Can you link those substantiated posts you were taking about cause I haven't seen them. "Black Project..?"
Here is one a little more up to date for you; 31 Dec 2016, he wrote of 5% or the $50 million that he had lent the campaign. - The Washington Post If you really have been following political postings, you will see that unless it is a follow up discourse, nearly every claim I make has a source to back it up.
This is not a fact. There's 0 source for any of this info. And no I haven't seen any of that. And if you're quoting sourcless prices like this it has much less value. Source is everything. "Black Project..?"
That is a source. The reporters compiled the information, the editors check it and it was published. What the heck do you consider a source? You send a link from Politifact that was rather dated, but you used it for a source. How is the Post any different?
You see those little blue links on politifact? Those are sources, they link you to where and how the "info" was gathered. No links no source no value. I gathered info and made a webpage that Obama was an alien, it's on a webpage so it's true right? Sourcing is everything. "Black Project..?"
You are not a reputable source of news, I venture to say that the Washington post is. Even so, you can still determine from your older source that indeed he was not self funded. Here is a newer one still; note that the data originated with the Federal Election Commission data released electronically on 11/27/17. Summary data for Donald Trump, 2016 cycle
Any mainstream media is not a source, as has been displayed sooo many times they skew facts or flat out make them up to press their narrative. It's gonna take me a bit to make heads or tails if the FEC site (not the link) and I'm not seeing Trump's contributions. You may be right... It's a possibility. But I need to see it. "Black Project..?"
I see that the Russians and the extremist sites have gotten into your head. Mainstream media news does not intentionally make up facts. Opinion pieces in their outlets are just that - opinions. They may indeed try and convince one to their point of view. If an outlet did that they would be ostracized by their peers.
Yeah it's the Russians... sure... Not even a republican but sure the Russians clouded my mind so badly that I check and verify every shred of info I hear or see. God forbid I rely on mainstream media to dictate my views with their half assed excuse for journalism. Damn green didn't know you were this Left. "Black Project..?"
It is not left or right, it is more of a trust in certain institutions and the knowledge of Russian disinformation programs.
You trust people who make money selling stories? Lies and slander sell much better than reality. "Black Project..?"
That's why you filter and use many sources to try and determine the facts from opinions. Opinions can change, the facts themselves don't, despite efforts to undermine them sometimes. If you don't rely on mainstream media where do you find your trusted sources? Are you so certain that they have no agenda?
Everyone has an agenda. I look up news from smaller media and then go through multiple articles and sources to verify. By verify I mean find everything that's consistent and take that and throw out everything that doesn't match up. I'm about as politically neutral as it gets, I don't have a side or a narrative or a country that I give my heart to. The only thing I care about is what's fact and what works for the world. My only agenda is animal rights, and even that I'm neutral on, don't agree with PETA don't agree with extrmism... etc etc. If I can't verify something then I write it off as spurious, theoretical or just take it with a fat grain of salt. "Black Project..?"
Can't see who you are talking too (my doing), but there is no possibility of opening the eyes of a person with selective reading.. People should try to study the "facts" as best they can using LOGIC and COMMON SENSE! Sorry to say this is not the case today (for many with blinders on). My news has been coming from other countries, since the news in the USA is completely TAINTED BY BOTH SIDES! This enables me to judge the "facts" on their merits as I interpret them. I find the ERRORS by CNN unforgivable (the sheer quantity); and the obvious attempts by Fox News at MANIPULATION of the news to be most troubling. The use of beautiful news women on both sides is funny AF..
Roger Stone remembers another Russian Contact when it was revealed in the news. He also had a buddy with him. Now he says he forgot, was not important, and also FAILED to Reveal This ( LIED ) when he was interviewed. Hes now in more deep DOODOO Logic, and Common Sense says something IS UP with all of these people..."LYING" and is ALL Russian Related