yeah, at wasting my fucking taxes with this farse, at least you don't have to pay for that shit.

So we should ignore all the times Obama was accused of:

-Not being an American citizen

-Being a Muslim

-Secretly desiring to destroy Christians

-Planning on creating a third term

I rarely check the media, so I am pretty sure my opinion isn't impacted. I know better than to support corrupt, twisted, and vile politicians and billionaires. Trump isn't for the people- he's just a joke. 

You continue to ramble on the same nonsense. The media magically holds power, and that we are all supposedly impacted by it. Maybe I'm simply not retarded and can tell the difference between a regular person and a narcissistic asshole. I don't need the media for anything. I didn't need the media to see this survey and realize that he's basically begging for money to fight a useless issue. If we're going to "fight" the media, why don't we expose all the trash networks? New York Times, BREITBART, Fox News, BBC, etc.

You have evidence of some of his statements being false, but I find most of your points to be legalistic and nitpicky (and to be fair, my responses to your points are equally legalistic and nitpicky).  In very few of these cases is there an actual analysis of the underlying intent of what Trump is saying.  I personally like the teleprompter-free style that Trump has even if it means that he is going to make a few more mistakes or innaccuracies.  The organic connection with the people is valuable and it frankly makes me trust him more.

I have a lot of evidence that the media is willfully lying and co-conspiring with elites to launch a coup against the American people, but I can see that it will be a complete waste of time for me to try to prove this to you.  I just hope that as time moves on you can start to see that the mainstream media is an enemy of the people and that Trump, while not perfect, is at least trying to protect our freedoms.

They are serious claims about voter fraud in this election.  Drumpf has spoken about this many times during the election and he may also have intel that you and I do not have.  We have no proof that he is wrong here, only opinions.  You are free to disagree, but I support him here.

He was not talking about voter fraud here.  He said he had the largest electoral college victory, not that he would have.  When pressed on it, he did not mention voter fraud at all.  That is a totally different line of bullshit.  I assure you that Drumpf does not have secret electoral college results that we don't know about.   If you support him on this, you are in direct conflict with reality.

But no, there are no serious claims about voter fraud, unless you just mean that the people who make the claims are serious about them.  To say a claim is serious requires evidence, and none has been provided.

Can you prove that every area within the zone of the inaugeration experienced substantial rain during the exact time of his speech?  I am not going to argue that it may have rained but Drumpf was sharing his personal experiences and if he visually didn't see rain then I think that he is entitled to his opinion that it did not rain on his inaugaration.  The level of proof that I would expect here would be a video showing rain drops bouncing off of his face while he was taking the oath.

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2017/01/2017-trump-inauguration-day-photos-002396?slide=44

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2017/01/2017-trump-inauguration-day-photos-002396?slide=46

http://time.com/4641165/donald-trump-inauguration-rain/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q_G-ytQLts

You can hear Drumpf speaking as Bush is struggling with the Poncho, and you can see it wet in the images.  There are many accounts of it raining during the inaugaration, before Drumpf commented on it.  You can see people wearing rain ponchos while he is speaking and Melania with an umbrella.  Unless you are delusional, the evidence is clear that it is raining.  Either that, or there was a massive conspiracy involving silent coordination of every news outlet, George Bush, Melania Drumpf, and thousands of random twitter users.  A massive conspiracy to claim that it was raining... for no particular reason.

And bear in mind, it's not as though someone asked him if it was raining and he said he didn't think so.  That's understandable.  He made a specific point of saying how god wouldn't allow it to rain on his inaugaration, and that it looked like it was going to rain and it didn't.

Weather is not a matter of opinion or interpretation.  There was water falling from the sky.

Again, you are going to have a hard time proving that Drumpf is willfully lying or that he is factually wrong in this case.  I definitely heard reports of cab drivers getting out of their Taxi's and cheering with 9/11 happened but I do not have proof and I do not know for sure that they were Muslim.  It is possible that many people won't talk about it on record because of the politically correct stigma attached to it and so we may never find proof.  Drumpf may have obtained this information from sources whom he trusts.  Again, there is no way to prove that he is right but you can't say with certainty that he is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-carson-on-911-celebrations/

Wait... there is no way to prove he's right?  Are you kidding me? He said there were thousands and thousands of people cheering in the streets.  He said he saw it on TV!  If he was actually right, this should be INCREDIBLY EASY to prove.

Sometimes, the evidence of absence is the absence of evidence.  There should have been some evidence if this was actually true.  The only other possibility is that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands of people in New Jersey were cheering, but despite extreme anger at the time, much of it directed at Islam, nobody in New Jersey said a thing.  Nobody reported the incident, the attorney general stated this never happened (he did), nobody took videos, nobody took pictures, nobody blogged about it, and somehow the media, including right wing outlets, were able to silence the entire population of New Jersey.

It's like if I told an insurance company that my house was in a fire that caused thousands of dollars in damage.  They came and inspected it and found no evidence of smoke damage, none of my neighbors claimed there was a fire, nothing looked burnt, and nobody had called the fire department.  The insurance company would rightly say that I'm full of shit, and deny my claim.  If in actuality, there was a small fire in a frying pan, that caused ten dollars of damage, that does not make me any less full of shit.

I can say beyond a reasonable doubt that he is wrong.  The only way to make him right is if you somehow interpret "thousands and thousands" of people to mean "some cab drivers".  You could argue that it didn't literally mean thousands, but there is no way you can reasonably claim it meant a few isolated incidents.

Did Drumpf willfully make this comment up or was he going off of a Fox News story that made an erronneous report?  Can you prove that Drumpf knew that this story was false?  Drumpf's comments are unscripted, his strengths are his ability to relate to people personally and it reasonable for him to go off of mainstream news and not indepently fact check the validity of every single story.  His example may have been incorrect, but the intent of his comment was not:  terrorism is indeed a major issue in Sweden right now and America needs to be careful with whom it brings in.

So... you're suggesting that despite his insistence that the mainstream media is biased and fake news, he presented a story from the mainstream media as fact without verifying it? You keep telling me that he probably has better sources... so why is he relying on Fox News?  

Plus, this actually presents a disturbing possibility.  Did Drumpf think that there was a serious attack in Sweeden... and nobody in his administration briefed it or mentioned it?  Do they not talk about current events?  How did he think this happened with nobody saying a thing O_o?

Anyway, that's all completely irrelevant.  I said he was not trustworthy because he says demonstrably untrue things.    And this is absolutely demonstrably untrue.  I'm not inside his head, so I can't tell you why he said it, but that's completely beside the point.  There was no report of this on Fox News about a specific incident on Friday, but even if there was, it is absolutely reasonable to expect the President to ensure he is giving out true information.  If he does not give accurate and true information, then he is untrustworthy, regardless of motive.

Saying that something happened in Friday in Sweeden is not the same as saying terrorism is an issue there (which I'm not sure is true either).  The statement is simply false.  Again, you are changing the words to mean something that they do not mean.

On a side note, it is absolutely terrifying that you and people like you are ok with the man making the most important decisions in the world having such wildly inaccurate information.  I want the person ultimately responsible for the defense of my nation to have at least a competent understanding of what the fuck is going on.

When Drumpf told his Twitter followers to check out the sex tape, he might have just been direting them to look into the fact that there was a sex tape but not to necesarily watch the content.  He probably could have worded the tweet more carefully, but I don't think that it was necessarily his intent to get people to view pornography. This is a really weak nitpick:  if Drumpf clarified after the fact that it wasn't his intent for people to view the sex tape with this tweet but rather just become aware that it exists then I am willing to give him that. 

Check out sex tape... There is only one way I reasonably know how to interpret that sentence (fragment).  And that is... check out sex tape.  If you're willing to change the English language to suit him, yeah, he's not lying.  But yeah, he absolutely said to check out the sex tape... which I was unable to find.

When he said that he didn't know David Duke, did Drumpf mean that he doesn't know him personally?  I can say that I don't know Obama, which would be true but I obviously know "of him."  This might just show that Drumpf uses impercise language, which is reasonable given the fact that he doesn't have a teleprompter.  The gist of what I believe he was trying to say is that he doesn't personally interact with Duke and so he doesn't have anything to say about him and I am willing to accept this.  I think that the intent is pretty obvious when you pull back from analyzing each little word and look at the general meaing that Drumpf is trying to convey.

"I don't know, did he endorse me or what's going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about. …"

"Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan," Drumpf wrote in a statement. "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman,  Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."

"Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"

He said he didn't know anything about David Duke.  He has specifically, unprompted,  addressed David Duke, by name, several times in the past and he knew he was a klansman.  I would think that fact alone should have been enough to denounce him... as he did before he decided to court the "alt right".

What he was thinking is irrelevant.  I cannot judge what was in his head.  I can only judge what he said according to standard usage of English language.  I have never heard anyone use the phrase "I don't know anything about X" to mean "I don't personally know x".  That is simply not a reasonable interpretation of what he said.   Again, if you want to change the meanings and usages of words, you can turn any false statement into a true one. 

I said he was untrustworthy, not that he's an intentional liar.  I believe both, but can only prove the former.  I don't know what is going on in Drumpf's head, but if he is constantly saying things that are untrue he is not trustworthy.

To be fair, I did hear him saying many times during his rallies never to hurt the protestors and so I credit him with that.  That said, in the case of the tomato throwing rioters, he did tell his people to knock the crap out of them and that he would pay their legal fees, I can maybe give you one here.

I could be wrong, but I believe he began saying not to hurt protestors after the media reported on him telling his supporters and security to hurt them, and after there were several incidents of violence.  

And, I don't need you to "give me one".  There are videos.  It's in the public record.  Whether you disagree or not doesn't matter.  It's a matter of fact.  You either accept reality or you do not.

Drumpf's aide made the comment, not Drumpf.  Please demonstrate that Drumpf personally vetted and approved this comment.  Otherwise this cannot prove that Drumpf is at fault, this could have just been a rookie mistake by a new administration.

Yes... which is why I said "his administration".  I also expect Trump's administration to be trustworthy and accurate.  Sorry if that's a problem.  And, it was someone who had a lot of experience speaking to the media, not a random aide.  There have thus far been three incidents of reporting on things that never happened to justify a ban on immigration from certain countries.  That's troubling.

"Last Week Tonight" claims that they never invited Drumpf to be on their show but I think that we have conflicting testimonies here, not proof of Drumpf being wrong.  More evidence is definitely needed.

The show generally doesn't have political guests.  It's not a talk show format, but they sometimes have guests perform in skits. Most of them singers or actors, very rarely politicians, and no reality stars to my knowledge.  Considering Drumpf has made several claims like this, like the NFL's letter, and the nature of the show, the evidence strongly sides with Oliver here.  

He has been in office for one month and this is unlikely to be something he would publicize in any regard.  I will wait a few years to see what happens here.

Drumpf: “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about."

Conway: "I think when the President-elect, who's also the head of your party, tells you before he's even inaugurated that he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content"

He said he was going to do it, made it VERY clear that it was something that he felt strongly about (or at least pretended to), then that he didn't feel strongly about it while his campaign manager said he wouldn't.  He was lying before or after.  

Actually, there is definite evidence that Drumpf had serious reservations about the war in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion:

Again, if you change the meaning of words, you can make Drumpf truthful.  But having reservations is not the same as opposing.  You can support something you have reservations about (which he seemed to do in the Stern interview).  I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there was anyone who had no reservations about the war in Iraq.  And by the way, "yeah I guess" or saying that the economy is more important in no way suggests "serious" reservations.

Drumpf said "I was totally against the war in Iraq."  He said “I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.'  He said but you really have to leave some troops behind because look, we should have never gone into Iraq. I've said it loud and clear. I was visited by people from the White House asking me to sort of could I be silenced because I seem to get a disproportionate amount of publicity."

He did not say he had reservations. He said he opposed it, and he opposed it so strongly that he was getting enough publicity for the White House to silence him, despite the fact that there were many other vocal critics.  Despite his claims of being vocally opposed to the war, the articles mentioned in the article are the best support that can be found.  One of them voices support with reservations.  The other is, at best, ambivelant.  This is not even in the ballpark of the truth.  Either there is yet another absolutely massive conspiracy going on, he is lying, or he is delusional.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/10/07/donald-trump-america-can-be-greater-than-ever-before/

Drumpf clarified his comment immediately after saying the words "not a war hero" by stating that "He is a war hero because he was captured."  Drumpf expressed his dislike for McCain but I do not believe that the intent of his comment was to say that he wasn't a war hero since he clarified himself so quickly after making the remark. 

http://www.wsj.com/video/trump-mccain-not-a-war-hero/ED189B74-0E1C-47B6-A69F-97D692B4B7E7.html

I think your sarcasm detector is off.  And, right after he said "he's a war hero because he was captured", he said "I like people who weren't captured".  This indicates that he was indeed saying McCain wasn't a war hero, and is simply a disgusting thing to say in general.  This one is hard to call objectively false because it deals with tone of voice... but I think you're being far too generous.  

You have evidence of some of his statements being false, but I find most of your points to be legalistic and nitpicky (and to be fair, my responses to your points are equally legalistic and nitpicky).  In very few of these cases is there an actual analysis of the underlying intent of what Drumpf is saying.  I personally like the teleprompter-free style that Drumpf has even if it means that he is going to make a few more mistakes or innaccuracies.  The organic connection with the people is valuable and it frankly makes me trust him more.

Your defense for most of these claims is to change the words.  I had the largest electoral victory does not mean "I would have had the largest victory if not for illegal votes I have no evidence for".  Thousands and thousands does not mean, "a few cab drivers".  Something happened in Friday in Sweeden does not mean "terrorism is an issue".  Check out sex tape does not mean ummmm... not to check out the sex tape.  Having some reservations does not equal "opposing it so strongly that the White House tried to silence him due to the publicity".  "I don't know anything about him" does not mean "I don't know him personally". 

 And taking something like "thousands and thousands" of muslims celebrating to mean there was a very large number of muslims publicly celebrating is not legalistic or nit picky.  It is a reasonable interpretation of what he said on a rather important issue.

If you want to change the English language to accomodate Drumpf, then no, he has never lied.  If you interpret his words according to the normal conventions of English, then he is constantly untruthful.

Regardless of whether or not he actually intends to lie is irrelevant.  The information is untrue.  If the information he presents is untrue, why should I trust him? 

It's fine if you like the way he speaks, but to say that making more mistakes or inaccuracies means he is more trustworthy is baffling.  Giving wrong information cannot possibly make you more trustworthy in any rational way.  That's some 1984 shit.

I have a lot of evidence that the media is willfully lying and co-conspiring with elites to launch a coup against the American people, but I can see that it will be a complete waste of time for me to try to prove this to you.  I just hope that as time moves on you can start to see that the mainstream media is an enemy of the people and that Drumpf, while not perfect, is at least trying to protect our freedoms.

If you don't want to provide evidence, I don't really care.  But, I resent the accusation that I am somehow unable or unwilling to comprehend it.  If you can not or will not defend your position, do not hold me responsible.

This is true. But that doesn't mean the media doesn't massively sway people's opinions. 

Oh, I am not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that in the particular case of Trump's image I do not believe the media has much of an influence. You either like him or not based on his own words and actions.

Believe me I am not egging you on. What I am being is honest. I know it is difficult to think that especially online and especially about the USA at this point in time but I am being honest. And the stats I am talking about are all true you can check them out. Besides that Drumpf is a bumbling fool who just recently created a Swedish terror attack that never happened and talked about immigrants increasing crime in Sweden when its lower than before

No offense, but those arguments are nonsensical.

First off, I can absolutely deny that you are more likely to die by a fridge falling on you than by a radical Islamic (no idea why there are quotation marks like that's not a real thing) terrorist in the US.  The data does not show that.  Assuming your data is correct, it shows that in the past, more people have been killed by falling refrigerators.  But, "likely" is a probabilistic term.  To make that argument you have to account not only for past data, but also for future changes (growth of Islam, changes in funding, changes in refrigerator models, etc) that might alter future results.  

If we leave refrigirators unchecked, there is absolutely no possibility that they will become significantly more lethal then they are now.  Refrigerators are not thinking agents.  They can not plot, they can not plan, they can not exert political influence.

I'm not sure about the refrigerator deaths, but I'll take your word for it.  However, that can all change in one instant.  There is a significant number of muslims with an apocalyptic ideology and such fanaticism that they will die for the sake of killing Americans or other Westerners.  That's not to mention the contigency of muslims slaughtering other muslims, raping and enslaving children, and beheading other muslims.  I don't know the exact numbers, but if you count every member of ISIS as a terrorist (which hardly seems unreasonable) I am almost positive that Muslim terrorists outnumber Christians by a very wide marging.  And, it does not matter if their are "only thousands" of them.  A dozen people managed to kill 3,000.  With the technology we have today, it is perfectly possible for several thousands of people to fundamentally destroy our way of life.

Refrigerators can not commit mass murder.  I don't have to worry about a refrigerator attacking a train I'm on while I'm headed to work.  It just won't happen.  With common sense and proper precautions, I can be basically 100% sure I will not be killed by a fridge.  

On the other hand, radical Islamic terrorists are making an effort to increase their killing capacity.   Should they acquire a weapon of mass destruction, which according to security experts is NOT a statistically insignificant risks (some place the odds of a nuclear attack happening in a major Western City as high as 30% in the next ten years) this would pose an existential threat to our way of life.  And, there are islamic terrorists who are absolutely seeking to do that.  If they are able to, then all those statistics about fridges go out the window in a flash.  So don't minimize the threat by comparing the two.

I am not suggesting all muslims are terrorists.  I am not advocating banning muslim immigration, because I think it is our moral responsibility to help those who are most likely to be victims (other muslims) especially as US foreign policy played a significant role in the current problems.  However, when the left refuses to acknowledge that radical Islam poses a major threat to our country and indeed the world at large, it's a huge problem.  It's a problem that needs a solution.  And if we don't provide rational and humane solutions, then people turn to irrational and inhumane solutions like those proposed by Drumpf.

Radical Islam is a major threat.  Probably the second largest threat that we face today as a society.  We cannot downplay the risk.  

Why did you single out the fridge thing. How about we talk about "radical Christian" terrorists the, They are more abundant both locally in the USA and the whole world. They are also increasing their efforts and continually a threat to your way of life but no one focuses on their threat. Just recently they attacked in Canada. THey are also ready and able to all those things including nukes and more. "Radical Christian" terrorists are also quietly increasing their resources and danger level cause no one pays attention to them. They are a major threat to the USA and to the world at large and must not be ignored. White supremacists are among them but they are not all exclusively white supremacists. There are thousands of militia in the USA. There are so many in-house dangers in the USA that should be dealt with with more emergency then so-called "Radical Islamic" terrorists. Why don't you deal with more imminent, growing and bigger dangers than "Radical Islamic" terrorists before looking suspiciously at more than a billion people. You look at outside threats like there are no threats in your own home. Its not a matter of actual danger but perceived danger here. The media and the right have made you perceive these middle eastern assholes and dumbasses as more dangerous than other threats when it is statistically and logically and factually not that much of a danger to beigin with. Daesh is a joke which would be quickly dealt with if USA, Russia and others left their politics at home. But USA wants the assad regime to go down so that it can install a puppet ruler in Syria while Russia wants to protect its puppet ruler. The rebels are just as bad as Assad but better than Daesh and Daesh should be wiped out first but they are not for political reasons. I understand that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are more difficult to deal with but Daesh is an absolute joke and should be dealt with and can be dealt with if western and Russian forces get serious

I singled out the fridge example because that was the part that was ridiculous to me, and the part I wanted to comment on. It best illustrated the ridiculous way some people try to diminish the very real threat islamic extremists pose. Then you just completely ignored it, which I can't say I blame you for because I can't think of how you'd defend that.

As for the rest of what you said, it's all kind of rambly.  I can't really address all of it, because I'm not entirely sure what all of it means, but I'll address a few points.   

"THey are also ready and able to all those things including nukes and more. "Radical Christian" terrorists are also quietly increasing their resources and danger level cause no one pays attention to them. 

You'll have to support this with some kind of evidence.  So far as I know, there is thankfully no group that is actually ready to commit a nuclear strike, Christian or Islamic.  As for motivation though, there are many islamic groups that have made it their expressed goal to kill as many western civilians as possible.  We also know that ISIS had a nuclear scientist in Belgium and his family under surveillance.  Al Queda claimed it was the religious duty of muslims to work towards attaining a nuclear weapon, and had met with nuclear physicists in Pakistan.    

There is really no rational motivation for Christian terrorists to detonate a nuclear device in a Christian majority nation.  While there may be some insane christians with nuclear ambitions, there is no organized and well funded Christian group that has made murdering civilians a specific goal.  I'm actually strongly opposed to christian extremism, (and religion in general) but I am not aware of any christian group that poses the same level of threat by any stretch of the imagination.

"Why don't you deal with more imminent, growing and bigger dangers than "Radical Islamic" terrorists before looking suspiciously at more than a billion people." 

Why don't you rationally defend your position instead of accusing anyone who acknowledges that radical islam (no quotation marks, this is a real thing) is a threat of being islamaphobic?  I didn't say or imply in any way that we should be suspicious of every muslim.  I did specifically say we should be taking in muslim refugees.  But don't let what I actually said get in your way.

"You look at outside threats like there are no threats in your own home."

Nope.  I didn't say anything like this.

 The media and the right have made you perceive these middle eastern assholes and dumbasses as more dangerous than other threats when it is statistically and logically and factually not that much of a danger to beigin with.

No.  No.  No.  No.  No. No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.

Are you an expert in nuclear security?  No?  Didn't think so.  So I don't know how you came up with these statistics.  

But, there ARE people who actually are experts in these fields.  These experts, on average, believe the risk to be around 30% of a nuclear attack occuring in a major US city per 10 years (albeit most of the data I found was from 2005-2010 so the numbers may have changed).  Barack Obama has said that the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack keeps him awake at night.  Forme UN Secretary General Kofe Annan has warned of the damage that can be caused by a nuclear attack in Manhattan or Washington DC.  

So maybe you don't think it's not much of a danger, but a lot of people who know a lot more than you about this think that it is.

http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf

Oh, and this is just referring to the danger of a nuclear attack.  Of course, the risk of a major non-nuclear attack is far higher.  

Daesh is a joke which would be quickly dealt with if USA, Russia and others left their politics at home.

Ask the people of Syria how funny this joke is.