There’s a widely-circulated Facebook post purporting to be from a Democrat. The author (not surprisingly) is unknown. The facts generally false or misleading, although the author gets a few things right. I’ve decided to break it down, paragraph-by-paragraph, to determine accuracy. If you’ve reposted this post, why not include this response?
Because of the length of the post, my response will be multi-part. I have quoted exactly from the post, including punctuation. The original post is in indented italics.
This is copied from a friend.
I’m not one to try and change people’s political beliefs but rather be hopeful that one day something clicks. I love you & this Country!I am a Republican, but I found this interesting. This is an open letter to all Democrats from a Democrat. I DID NOT write this, but it needs to be shared…
Sorry, don’t believe this was written by a Democrat. Why won’t authors of such posts identify themselves?
I just have a few questions for you….Let me start with, I already know you don’t like President Trump…that’s a given,
So let’s move on from that…
Yes, I do. He, at least, contributed greatly to it. From his comment about “good people on both sides”, to his dog whistles to racists and white supremacists, and his appalling lack of effort to reach out to our diverse citizens, he is to blame. Sadly, many of his Republican Senators and Representatives fail to call him out on his dog whistles or other troublesome comments.
He didn’t start it, though. The cruel comments directed to President Obama and his accomplished First Lady were a sign of what was to come.
Don’t you think that started the division? He hadn’t even been president yet, and EXCEPT for Clinton and Obama, not one democrat showed up….Is that when Trump divided America? Can you imagine if the REPUBLICANS didn’t show up for Obama’s inauguration because they lost??? Can you even start to imagine what would have happened?
False. Many Democrats were present – indeed, over 2/3. To be sure, some skipped it. Wikipedia notes “Sixty-seven Democratic U.S. representatives declined to attend Trump’s inauguration, citing ‘what they described as his alarming and divisive policies, foreign interference in his election and his criticism of civil rights icon John Lewis, a congressman from Georgia’”.
According to Membership of the 115th Congress: A Profile , there were 248 Democratic members in the 115th Congress – 201 in the House, and 47 in the Senate. So, about 27% of the Democratic members decided not to attend – or about 73% did attend.
But more importantly, skipping inaugurations is rather a tradition for both parties. Republicans skipped the inaugurations of both President Clinton and President Obama. See, for example, “Inauguration Skipping is Nothing New”.
How about when 19 minutes after Trump was inaugurated, the Washington Post declared the IMPEACHMENT CAMPAIGN has STARTED? Was that when Trump divided America?
Sort of true – but misleading. The Washington Post, in a story posted at 12:19 p.m. the day of President Trump’s inauguration, posted a story about certain groups who had started impeachment efforts. Publishing a story is hardly “declaring” something. The Post was simply reporting news that was truthful and newsworthy. I suspect other media outlets did likewise. As the article stated: “The organizers behind the [impeachment] campaign, Free Speech for People and RootsAction, are hinging their case on Trump’s insistence on maintaining ownership of his luxury hotel and golf course business while in office. Ethics experts have warned that his financial holdings could potentially lead to constitutional violations and undermine public faith in his decision-making.”
Trump’s failure to divest of his financial interests continue to be concerning to many (if not most) of us. Are you really okay with that?
How about when Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s state of the union right in front of the world, showing complete disrespect for the President of the United States? Did that bring the country together and is THAT when Trump divided America?
I didn’t like that, either. It was beneath her. But I can empathize with her frustration. After all, he refused to shake her hand at the beginning of the speech, and the speech was replete with lie after lie. I still wish she’d been the classy lady she’s shown herself to be 99% of the time. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
How about when America had to endure, 3 years and over 30 million dollars spent on trying to PROVE that Trump only won because of RUSSIAN COLLUSION and NOT because America voted him in and 17 democrats did EVERYTHING in their power to PROVE that there was Russian Collusion…and came up with ZERO…?
Was THAT when Trump divided America?
Where on earth did this unknown author come up with “ZERO”. The Mueller Report did not address collusion, as that’s not a legal term. There was plenty of evidence about Russian interference that the Mueller investigation uncovered. Is it a coincidence that the Russian interference was pro-Trump? There were also plenty of convictions, including those close to Trump, as well as Russian operatives. Here’s a neutral summary of the findings. What’s particularly troubling is that Trump refuses to acknowledge the threats of outside interference with the 2020 election. And oh, by the way, don’t forget that Trump lost the popular vote by 3,000,000 people.
I’ll leave it to those smarter than I to determine whether the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president can’t be indicted is correct or appropriate. As Mueller stated: “We investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation . . . . Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”
I’m not sure what the “17 Democrats” comment is all about, so can’t address that one.
I can’t even start to go over the NEGATIVE PRESS he’s received since his surprise win…
I tend to agree. One receives negative press when one does negative things. The converse is also true.
The author apparently doesn’t know election finance law. No one can give millions to a candidate – we’re all limited to $2,500. Sadly, because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the money floodgates have opened for elections, through “dark money”. I think it’s a shame that $$ buys elections – but it’s a problem for both sides. For every billionaire supporting Democrats, I suspect there are 2 (or more) supporting Republicans. Super PACs, which do not have report donors (or their interests), are harming all of us. I would encourage the author to join the fight for transparency in election financing. Overturn Citizens United!
The author also implicitly suggests that Trump is somehow immune. However, as Forbes points out: “President Trump has accepted donations from 80 billionaires and their spouses, according to a review of Federal Election Commission filings. Fifty-one moguls donated in their own names. Seven others are married to people who did. In other words, 9% of America’s billionaires, who together are worth a combined $210 billion—either directly or through their spouse—have pitched in to cover the costs of Trump’s 2020 campaign.”
Let’s also not forget the huge tax break that Trump shepherded through the Republican-controlled Congress, and the extraordinary increase in national debt that that tax cut incurred for us and our children. Did billionaires really need it? It was Trump, don’t forget, who bragged to his millionaire Mara Lago buddies “You all just got a lot richer.”
DID YOU KNOW that 90% of the Mainstream media and the corporations that own them, are owned by or run by BIG DEMOCRAT DONORS? You can verify all of that for yourselves…I did…
Source, please? Didn’t think so. In fact, mainstream media does tend to favor one side over the other, at least in opinion pieces. For every MSNBC, there’s a Fox News. For every New York Times, there’s a Wall Street Journal. 90%? Without a source? This rather reminds me of Trump’s frequent statements that “everyone knows . . .” something that no one had heard before.
The premise of this statement is not accurate, and it’s misleading. Both candidates suffered majority negative reporting. I urge the reader to review the study titled “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters” Here’s a chart explaining coverage – negative and positive – for both candidates, from that source:
As the above chart demonstrates, both candidates received substantially more negative than positive coverage.
This post, as well as many Trump memes talk about Trump’s “accomplishments” in general. Few cite what those are. What are they? A huge tax cut for the wealthy? The three miles of wall that he’s built between the US and Mexico – without a dime from Mexico, as he’d promised? Denying climate change? Isolating the US from our allies? Leadership during a pandemic? Or setting a record for presidential golfing? The new NAFTA, which is basically the old NAFTA? Record untruths? Inability to keep staff? Unfilled positions? Departmental leadership appointed in “acting” capacities? Rolling back important environmental protections? Putting children in cages? This list can go one and on. Even his much bally-hooed Supreme Court nominees have been less than reliable for him.
I’ll continue to examine this lengthy post in Part II, and welcome comments!
1 thought on “Fact-checking pro-Trump FB Post – Part I”
Thank you. A friend asked whether I had read the article, “A Democrat asks other Dems”, and to my no, she sent it to me. The lack of a signature or author was the first problem I saw. Next were many percentages given, with no sources cited. Finally the mean history teacher who punished a whole class with a 5 HOUR TEST! Oh please, the drama!!
I did hear about former President Obama (as well as the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan…) granting pardons and commuting sentences. Looking into this, President Trump has done this far less often than President Obama (1927 Granted/36544 Requested = 0.0527), as well as far less than Presidents G W Bush ( 200 GRANT/12074 REQUEST = 0.0166 ),
Clinton (459 GRANT/7489 REQUEST = 0.0613),
G H W Bush (77 GRANT/1466 REQUEST = 0.0525),
and Reagan (406 GRANT/3404 REQUEST = 0.1193). So yes, President Obama granted more pardons and commutations than President Trump, but so did every other President in the past 40 years.
(Department of Justice, Office of Pardon Attorney)
Looking forward to part 2!