Gamblers won $276,424 for betting that Trump would lie
You don't need to be a trained Kremlinologist to interpret the presidential Trump. He is easy to read. If there is something he is especially angry about, you know there is something up.
You know if Trump is frothing about Mueller in several tweets, then something will come out of the investigation.
If Trump ever tweets about the abstructionist Democrats destroying America just to eat ice cream, you can be sure he has a bad stomach from eating too much ice cream.
So when I saw this tweet, I was sure something was up, since the tone was different. Not generally mean, but desperate angry.
Has he been catched at some extraordinary lie? Not quite. I think someone had shown him this:
Gambling site Bookmaker took quite a punch last night after losing $276,424 to people who correctly bet that Trump would make at least 3.5 "false statements" (aka lies, or alternative facts) during his Oval Office address last night – in fact, 92% of the people who placed a bet got it right.
Apparently, they were banking on the fact that Trump wouldn't be able to squeeze in enough lies in the short 8-minute time allotment he had. Huge miscalculation – we're talking about Trump, after all.
Really, he is such a child!
and what were the 3.5 false statements?
Ah, I forgot the source again. :(
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/09/gamblers-won-276424-for-bett.html
There is the link to the factchecker too. I haven't looked at that because I am half-prevented as a EU citizen. Because of that I forgot to put in the first link too.
As an American let me show you how hilarious the bet was:
LOL I wish I knew, if they are going by the WaPo the only certainty is that they will claim everything Trump said is false. Bet the farm on that! Of course that provides no actual information on if Trump lied or not. In fact I would wager that the 6 "lies" in the WaPo "factcheck" are the same 6 Democrat anti wall talking points that the Guardian and all the rest of the CIA/disinformation/propaganda outlets issued immediately after the speech that may as well have been written in advance.
Then please prove that the the fact checker lied. Should not be that hard, right?
I guess Trump talked about how dangerous it is at the border. That is a lie, since the border towns are all safer than the average big American city and the safest big city is San Diego.
This is according to a San Diego newspaper reporting about a study of official data.
https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2018/12/24/if-there-is-a-crisis-on-the-border-why-is-san-diego-so-safe/
So if that study is "fake news" you should have no problems finding the data and prove that. It's from the Trump administration, so it won't hide crimes by immigrants, right?
(I would not wonder if they hide the data itself though. Like the website of the border guards union that made away a year old page what a stupid thing a border wall is last week after the head of the union met with Trump.)
sure, I assume their "fact check" consisted of the same 6 Democrat talking points as the Guardian regurgitated, here is my rebuttal to them all:
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@funbobby51/operation-mockingbird-2019-six-key-fake-things-to-know-about-trump-s-border-wall-speech
Do you think X should not be able to use arguments if someone else has used them before?
a San Diego newspaper's opinion section
Do you want to say someone from San Diego can't have an opinion about San Diego?