Slashdot Mirror

Thank you for proving my point by linking to a long discredited story, which you cling to because it supports your political opinions.

If you weren't an anti-science political hack, you wouldn't be trying to peddle those lies here.

Uh, you do realize that the "open borders doors policy" from Hillary Clinton came from her emails? They literally said they wanted open borders.

I realize that you like to lie about that a lot.

Troll harder.

Is that your name now? I thought BlueStrat was the only person signing their posts.

Charities are often scams on both sides. e.g. The Clinton Global Fund.

Sorry, but the Clinton Global Fund has been assessed as not a scam, nor has its parent entity.

Why did it's funding go dry the day the bitch lost?

Why did the GOP tell so many lies about it?

Sorry HornWumpus, but you've discredited yourself.

You're just too much of a partisan ideologue.

PS:

Increasing the average farm plot size should be a goal.

It is. Of the Corporate Farming Oligarchy.

Stop being an ignorant mouthpiece, at least insist on being an informed one.

Then again, you're obsessed with the losing candidate, while the winning one just might be incapable of feeding himself in a few weeks.

The top 1% pay 27% of taxes now, compared to 15% in 1979 when tax rates were higher. Meanwhile their share of income has increased from 9% to 18%

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

And the top 10% pay 72.7% of income taxes and 54.7% of all Federal taxrs. E.g. see page 7 here.

https://cbo.gov/sites/default/...

The top 20%, i.e. highest quintile, pay 86.3% of all income tax and 68.7% of all Federal taxes.

On the previous page you can see how the effective tax rate rises with income quintile, i.e. from 4% to 25%.

So how are the rich, at least the ones who remain, not paying their fair share?

And of course given that it's highly rational for people who are US taxpayers to stop being US tax payers by giving up citizenship. And for people who aren't US taxpayers to avoid become US taxpayers at all cost.

I.e. in general the US's progressive tax system is an incentive for rich people to avoid becoming US citizens or lose that citizenship if they have it.

Meanwhile the US benefits system, sloppy enforcement of immigration rules and easy availability of fake Social Security Numbers to allow illegal immigrants to claim benefits.

That's the problem with the left. Their intentions are good but they don't understand incentives. And if you get incentives wrong you won't get the result you want. See for example South American countries who ended up dirt poor despite electing politicians who had similarly good intentions to help the poor and tax the rich. And the end result was that you have countries like Venezuela and Cuba that would be pretty rich under a government that was only as bad as the US one. Actually the government is far worse and those countries are so poor people flee them for pretty much anywhere else.

The Democrats sold our strategic uranium supplies to Russia. The last Democrat president bowed to foreign kings. President Trump is renogiating trade terms with China, for the benefit of the US. And somehow it's the GOP that is wrong? Who's the fucking shill now?

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...

Yeah, that never happened.

"Yeah, that never happened" is correct! Anonymous Coward says something accurate for a change.

There was no scientific consensus nor prediction by scientists that the Earth was "entering a global cooling phase."

Citations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/

So why the hell did we sell him 20% of our uranium?

That one is easy; you didn't.

[The Russia collusion investigation will get Trump] eventually and so we go back to having a President that understands the perils of global warming.

If Trump is removed, Pence will become president. Pence very reluctantly says that human activities may have "some impact on climate", but says that doing anything to address it would be "the kind of restrictions on our economy that are putting Americans out of work and, frankly, are driving jobs out of this country."
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/pences-stance-on-climate-change/

And he goes on to say climate change is "just an issue for the left."

You mean the Uranium scandal that only Obama had the power to stop and was approved but almost dozen other people / agencies and that Clinton at best could have only sent the matter for Presidential approval?
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

A very inconvenient quote for you from the article
"The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)"

Once again, you are running with pure speculation.

I also love your "I'm the center of the world" comment about "everyone" knowing she is in Russia's pocket. If you believe it, it must be a universal truth! Funny then that over 50 percent of voting Americans voted for her.

But Russians spent more on Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) than that. In fact, RF paid out 500k to Bill Clinton for just 1 speech. Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated to Clinton foundation by state-actor donors. 85% of that money was spent on Clinton family expenses rather than on charity. How is this someone not getting caught? There was nothing to catch. Clintons were openly bribed by foreign powers. Why would Russians spend millions on Clintons in the open only to go and then spend a few hundred thousand on Trump in secret? The whole Russian influence story doesn't make any sense if you consider all the publicly known information which you are asked to not consider as part of the story. Why are unproven accusations and innuendos (that Russia helped Trump) more important than what is known for a fact (that Russia helped Clinton)?

Because there is only on true statement in this paragraph that you wrote? It was Renaissance Capital (a Russian Bank) that paid Bill Clinton for the speech, not the Russian Federation. Hundreds of millions of dollars were not donated to the Clinton foundation by (Russian) state-actor donors. The Clinton Foundation is an audited charity, around 89% of money raised is spent on their charitable work. There is no evidence that the Clintons were bribed, openly or otherwise by any foreign powers. The Russians didn't "spend millions" on the Clintons, in fact, Putin kind of hates Hillary Clinton's guts because she openly questioned whether he had been legitimately elected the last time he rigged the Russian elections.

The one true thing: "There was nothing to catch". Maybe Russia tried to influence Hillary through Bill, but there's no evidence that it did happen, and Hillary had no influence on the decisions they supposedly wanted her to have made. This is nothing more a pernicious lie that you believe despite all the evidence saying you're wrong. Russia did help Trump, we're seeing more and more evidence of that every day, unlike the tired old distraction story that Trump's people, and now you, are circulating. This story is meant to distract you from the fact that Putin picked Trump because he's weak, unstable, and soft on Russia. They helped the wrong man get elected, and you're going to pay for it.

No, you've been listening to the right wing media, because the mainstream media hasn't been making these claims. Take a look at the Clinton Foundations tax filings, like I did, or factcheck.org did, and you'll see that your claim is bullshit. Yes, the Clintons made a boatload of money with speaking engagements, but they take no salary from the foundation, maybe just travel expenses. BTW, by your token, I'm no leftwind wingnut, I voted for Bush in 2000.

From Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:

• Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.

• Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.

• Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.

• Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses.

The point is that some foundations actually do the charitable activities themselves instead of paying other charities to do that work for them, and the Clinton Foundation is one of them. If you hadn't been listening to the right wing lies, you would have known that instead of propagating the lies. Is it a good, effective charity? I really don't know, but by repeating this nonsense, you're doing a disservice to the 2,000 CF foundation employees who are trying to make a difference.

I'm not a Hilary Clinton fan, and she was a crummy candidate who clearly has spent the last 17 years believing that she deserved to be President someday. If the Democratic party wants to win in 2018 and 2020, they need to start pointing out that trickle down economics has never worked, the upcoming "tax reform" is going to increase the deficit, make the rich richer, the companies will use their tax cuts for things like higher dividends and stock buybacks instead of investing in new equipment and better pay for employees who are not top executives like they did with the 2004 tax amnesty, and that Trump's cabinet is doing stupid things like making energy more expensive by pushing coal and nuclear energy, the EPA is allowing more pollution, the Interior Department is basically letting mining and logging go in to national monuments, forests to do things like strip mining, the Republicans voted to limit abortion, but couldn't pass a children's health insurance bill, the HUD secretary grew up getting HUD benefits but wants to dismantle the program. And when the Democrats make these points, they need to also explain how they're going to do a better job. If they can't do that, they'll lose again, because people like you are believing the lies the Republicans keep repeating.

because it was, and claims otherwise show a tremendous ignorance of the actual facts.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

No, he's listening to the news. You are listening to propaganda from government turnip Kris Kobach. Which is pretty funny because you seem like the type to go full-rabid on accusing everyone else of being a sucker for librul propaganda.

Not that any of these will change your mind, you can't reason a man out of a position they never reasoned themselves into. But in case anyone else reading along is wondering just WTF are you talking about:

Sen. Shaheen: There's No Evidence of Illegal Voting in New Hampshire
Is there evidence of voter fraud in New Hampshire, as Kris Kobach said? Not really
Kobach’s Bogus ‘Proof’ of Voter Fraud

Meanwhile, there are actual cases of voter fraud. Steve Bannon. for example. The reason turnips are all so worked up about voter fraud? They are the ones doing it. So they imagine everybody else is just as guilty as themselves because in turnip world there is no right and wrong, there is just your tribe and their tribe.

I'm not sure why fake news seems to be news as of late. I remember around the 04 election and shortly after there was a lot of fake news going around about Bush with some of it even making it to the mainstream media, and in fact slashdot even posted a few.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/...

(Every now and then, somebody repeats the one about the constitution on slashdot and gets a +5 moderation.)

Also from CapitalBlue, which spread to many mainstream media sites before being quickly removed, and also unsubstantiated:

http://www.rense.com/general62...

And then there was memogate, aka rathergate, which needs no link. I remember when the paper was shown to be a forgery, and no document experts wanted to authenticate it, CBS acknowledged that it was probably fake, but continued to argue that the story was true anyways, even when it later turned out that the source of the story (who conveniently burned the "memo" after sending it) was somebody who hated Bush for a very long time. Slashdot's Kdawson made the same argument on a front page posting as well.

There were many, many others as well. If you peruse democraticunderground for posts around that time period, you'll find plenty, but very few ever made news in the mainstream media.

Fortunately, I think that the mainstream media mostly learned their lesson during that era, though I wouldn't be surprised if they forget it after a generation passes by.

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

Did Obama also commit tax fraud when he bought his Chicago house from a Chicago developer for 20% of market value?

His Chicago house was bought in 2005, for 1.65 million, so are you saying it was worth 5-6 million dollars?

That seems excessive. Even now, it hardly has any great historical value. I'm afraid your accusations are as groundless as when you made it about birth certificates.

>

Is that why global temperatures change was essentially flat between 1998 and 2013 and NOAA had to falsify data to make it look otherwise? https://science.house.gov/news...

You should not blindly believe what the science hater (aka "Christian Scientist") Lamar Smith claims. He has proven time and again that the only thing he knows less about than science is honesty.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...

But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.

This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff.

For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)

Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly idiotic rumor that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were minions of the Devil or some such. At first, Snopes marked that one "unconfirmed", though they did report that Ashcroft laughed out loud when asked about it. A week or so later, it had been improved to "False".

I very strongly suspect a rumor of similar stupidity about a Democrat would have been stamped "False" from the very beginning.

Snopes is way overrated. Relying on Snopes as an authority for fact checking news is foolhardy.

I think you're missing the point. You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.

Snopes often provides few, if any, additional details beyond what has already been published elsewhere.

Most of these idiotic internet rumors aren't debunked elsewhere.

Difficult to effectively fact-check CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc without field reporters to gather details on the ground and various quality sources. Simply regurgitating and comparing what other news sources have published, alone, isn't much of a fact-check.

This isn't the site to fact-check CNN or the NY Times. This is a site that debunks idiot email "memes" showing me a civil-war era photograph of soldiers that shot a pterodactyl.

How about Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand? They all have [taxfoundation.org] a lower tax burden on workers

Be honest. That is not what the data in your link shows. It shows the tax burden on the *average* worker. Countries with progressive taxation have higher taxes on wealthier citizens so that *average* workers pay less. Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do NOT have lower overall government spending (as the link I previously provided shows), they just shift the tax burden differently than the US (which is what your tax foundation link shows).

Meaning taxes are up about 2.5 times per capita, versus the 50s. Is our quality of life that much better?

That is an unequivocal YES LIFE IS BETTER NOW. Life expectancy is higher. Educational attainment is higher. Workplaces are safer. The environment is cleaner. Food is cheaper. Travel is cheaper.

our labor force participation rate is low, poverty is up, and crime is much higher

Are you allergic to citing sources? Because none of that is true. labor force participation rate is higher now than in the 1950s https://data.bls.gov/timeserie... Poverty rates plummeted from 1959 to 1973 https://www.washingtonpost.com... Crime rate is trending down. Its still higher than 1960, but not much. Murder rate, in particular, is the roughly the same as 1960. Certainly, no correlation with government spending : http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

Your support of your agenda is blinding you to my point, coal jobs are not an issue most trump supporters care about. In fact 75% of trump supporters want to accelerate the growth of clean energy. I suggest you look at actual polling data and learn which issues were most important to trump supporters. Stop trying to cherry pick fringe issues to paint all his supporters in such a light.

Your claim would be more sustainable if not for the very fact that Trump's own messages are robustly enthusiastic towards coal jobs, which makes you miss the actual point, and somehow leads you to arguing an unrelated point, with some vituperation, trying to establish that others are ill-informed, instead of addressing what they said. You seem to want to blind yourself instead. And this pattern isn't even new, Obama was soundly denounced for his "stance" as a "coal-killer" almost a decade ago.

All your claims about Trump supporters wanting to accelerate the growth of clean energy, won't make that go away. It isn't a fringe issue, it is part of his messaging, and often rather factually deficient. Frankly, I'd attribute your polling to a simple matter of asking you how many people would come out against "clean energy" in the first place? A more robust survey would inquire as to what they'd support or allow, covering the process, not just asking people to confirm they support what seems like a desirable outcome. Polling often has that problem. Almost anybody will say something commendable, but their follow-through is often inconsistent.

It might be better to look at their support for Trump's actions on repudiating the Paris Climate Accord. Polling indicates they reveled in it. Now, of course, Trump claimed he was doing it to get a "better" deal, but that's the way he treats everything, he's not going to outright say that he doesn't care. The follow-through, well, that is where the results will be doubtful. Trump always promises unicorns and rainbows, but the delivery is not so much.

Which is why your claims resentment of not being understood is less persuasive than you may think. You may want to consider why you aren't exactly believable. And no, it's not limited to energy policy, just a few minutes ago I was hearing some politician praise Trump's healthcare plans, with set of vague pie-in-the-sky promises, that in no way was actually reflected in the presented plan which he enthusiastically supports. Politicians can certainly be supercilious and deceptive in general, but there is a level of hucksterism that goes beyond the norm, and no amount of shilling will remedy that, no matter how many convenient buzzwords you use. I suggest you look at the actual people, and observe their behavior more carefully. Stop trying to pretend that the light isn't revealing a dark and ugly truth.

They complained so much that it was decided Congress doesn't have to follow the same rules, despite it being in the law.

Except that never happened and was debunked over four years ago.

So, yea the GOP had the same idea as you. But we learned that even if it is written into law, Congress still doesn't have to follow it if it screws them over too bad, and they don't care if it does the same to you.

So here's where is gets really nuts. The GOP is trying to except congress. Talk about getting the story entirely backwards. Never in my life has the right seemed so crazy.

Anyone who voted up your post which is just a bunch of lies and bogus allegations.

Apparently you're not only one of them "low information voters", you're also promoting ignorance.

Time for you to learn.

- Bill Clinton pardoned two terrorists who were responsible (among other things) of killing two cops.

An unusual combination of New York political and law enforcement leaders have condemned former President Bill Clinton's pardon of Susan L. Rosenberg, a one-time member of the Weather Underground terrorist group who was charged in the notorious 1981 Brink's robbery in Rockland County that left a guard and two police officers dead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01...

- Bill Clinton also pardoned 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, two of which refused his pardon.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, which is a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as firearms and explosives violations.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

- The Clintons stole furniture from the White House and returned some of it to avoid further lawsuits.

The Clinton White House furnishings in question, which were donated in 1993, included two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman, worth $19,900, from Steve Mittman; a kitchen table and four chairs, valued at $3,650, from Lee Ficks; a $2,843 sofa from Brad Noe; $1,170 in lamps from Stuart Schiller; and a $1,000 needlepoint rug from David Martinous, according to the Post.
Mittman, Noe and Joy Ficks, the widow of Lee Ficks, told the Post that their donations were gifts to the White House, not the Clintons. The contributions were intended to complement a 1993 White House redecoration project.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

and it was apparently not enough because Hilary did it again when she was Secretary of State.

The ex-agent told the FBI that they were aware of Clinton or her aides 'removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington, D.C.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

- Bill Clinton has a history of rapes (he settled on the most famous one) and Hillary has a history of covering up his actions.

Bill Clinton raped me, and Hillary Clinton threatened me

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/...

- Hillary Clinton got caught lying many times

She said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But news video footage of her arrival at Tuzla shows Clinton, then the first lady, calmly walking from the rear ramp of a U.S. Air Force plane with her daughter, Chelsea, then 16, at her side. Both Clintons held their heads up and did not appear rushed.

The video shows Clinton spending several minutes talking with the group, including an 8-year-old Bosnian girl who presented her with a poem, and later greeting U.S. troops.

And meanwhile, in the real world, we like to use the courts to protect the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our laws. There are a lot of sneaky ways to deny people their rights, and getting at the reason something was enacted is PRECISELY what the courts are charged to do. Especially considering almost nobody from these countries were involved in actual terrorism . I think his motives are quite clear, as he stated, and I believe that they violate the first amendment, regardless of whether he has the power to issue such proclamations.

You do know that Al Gore heavily retrofitted his house and sources green energy for it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...

Or that Bill Nye backed a solar panel startup?

http://www.computerworld.com/a...

Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?

This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.

None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart

I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one.

We have no measurements at all on what any sort of fake news could of did. You cannot compare a nebulous quantity like this.

Hmm, I suspect that advertisers would disagree with you. They spent lots of money, they want results. You may not trust them, but they do have measurements.

While we have real studies on the likely number of illegals who voted. Studies that show the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

Oh really, and you can cite these studies? Sean Spicer couldn't. And I can find other reports that say numbers such as you and Trump claim are bogus.

Sorry, but actual prosecutions are so low, that you have to ask, if your allegations were true, why isn't anybody being charged? You know that does include Trump voters.

I'll believe you care when you get that woman charged. Absent that, I'll believe you don't even care.

Meanwhile, half of the votes in the recounts we did, in Hillary majority districts, could not even be recounted because of problems.

And these problems were? How many Trump votes were included? You know what I noticed about Michigan though?

2,279,543(DT) 2,268,839(HC)
2,564,569(BO) 2,115,256(MR)
2,872,579(BO) 2,048,639(JM)
2,479,183(JK) 2,313,746(GWB)

Hmm. Something odd about how the vote dropped precipitously in 2016. Perhaps you should explain that, instead of chasing a dubious phantom that is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Republican state government. Because they could have improved the voting systems if they wanted, they could have managed any errors. Mysteriously, they instead chose to gerrymander the state.

And while I suspect you don't want to admit it, if you believe there are indeed millions of unlawful voters, the you can't trust ANY election returns, there are no legally elected officials anywhere.

That means we have an illegitimate government. At all levels. Federal, state, and local.

Good luck calling for all of them to be removed.

I doubt you have the integrity to try.

African Americans have the lowest life expectancy, and vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Something with as many subgroupings as life expectancy is going to be rife with Simpson's Paradox, so probably best not to read too much causality into these correlations.

Shhhhh, do not give them anymore ideas. While the EPA denies that have the authority to implement a Cow Tax, they have setup the framework for it to be possible. Politicians are sneaky that way. Set situations up but do not implement them until later.

Not really. The POTUS swings between the parties a lot.

An electoral victory without the popular vote has happened only five times. Twice in the 21st century and three times in the 19th century.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

Well pretty much the whole thing. The deficit was actually doubled under obama, more than all other presidents before him combined. So there was no massive deficit reduction but an actual increase.

The number of unemployment did go down but the number not in the labor force actually went up by 13.5%. As for the number of actual jobs created, obama numbers are actually lower than Reagan.

I think the health care has been covered but lets by all means drag it out again. The number on health care did go up. But since you had no choice any more it had to go up. While the numbers on health care insurance did go up, the high delectable made the insurance useless.

As for the economy as a whole obama saw the greatest increase of 2.9%. Which is lower than Jimmy Carters 5.6% and Bush Primes of 3.8%

So yeah, I believe we can say that under obama the economy was a disaster and his policies where a failure. Jimmy Carter even beat him for gods sake. I fact the way the numbers are looking now that all of obama's pigeons are coming home to roost, he might just go down as the worse president in the last 100 years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-report-labor-market-participation-rate-2017-1/#since-obama-took-office-in-january-2009-the-us-economy-has-added-11250000-people-to-total-nonfarm-payrolls-1/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/29/americas-economy-before-obama-versus-after-obama//
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update//

A map put out by the Tax Foundation of the 10 states with the highest and lowest percentage of filers with no federal tax liability shows that the states with the highest percentage of non-filers are, by-and-large, states that typically vote Republican, while the 10 states with the lowest percentage of non-filers tend to be Democratic-leaning.

So it's the same old story... democrats pay taxes, and republicans leach off democrats.

Actually, the government is not the single stockholder of any of the federal reserve banks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

From http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks ... for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

On July 21, the Center for Medical Progress released a second, similar video, again featuring a discussion with a Planned Parenthood official in a restaurant. The numbers mentioned in the edited video are similar to what Nucatola said. The official, Mary Gatter, quotes a rate of $75 per specimen, and says she was thinking of saying $50. The discussion only reaches $100 because the “buyers” in the video mention higher prices.

So, I think we can agree:
      * PP is not making money when donating fetal tissue to research, if it is charging $30-$100 and hospitals charge $100-150. Note also that you are not complaining about those hospitals. Why is that?
      * The Center for Medical Progress claims that their videos prove that PP is selling fetal tissue for money. They asked leading questions and edited the videos to try to make this point. Saying something when the facts say otherwise is what most 6-year-olds call "lying", though you may call it PR.
      * Using the wrong stock footage (and not calling it out as stock footage in a "documentary" full of actual footage) would also be considered lying (nowadays, probably "alternative footage"). That doesn't imply that the rest of the footage is fake, but it does imply that any implications from those videos should be considered suspect.

The only things that stink here are the fetid bias of the MSM and their complete lack of journalistic ethics and the Democrats lack of ethics of any kind (likely to be revealed in the coming weeks as the AG opens real investigations and begins criminal prosecutions).

Just to be clear, there was no lying involved with Jeff Sessions. Here are some facts without the liberal MSM spin machine shitting all over them:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked under oath if he had ever had any contact with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. The exact question was:

"Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Jeff Sessions answered "No."

There has been zero evidence to date that his answer was not accurate (note the question asked about contact with the Russian government about the election, not contact with the Russian government in general as the MSM and dishonest Democrats are alleging...) Even the far left factcheck.org who are shills for the liberal progressive movement say there is nothing there: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...

Fact 1: Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador once in 2016, before he was part of the campaign, as a function of his position on the armed services committee.
Fact 2: The meeting was also attended by several retired armed service members and staffers, hardly the venue for collusion about throwing an election.
Fact 3: His other "meeting" was in a receiving line for 30 seconds surrounded by hundreds of people, again no sane person would believe that this even provided opportunity to discuss the 2016 election.

If you look at the facts, this is a non-story, but the MSM and democrats are doing their best to conflate and confuse the public.

Michael Flynn's "improper contact" with the Russian ambassador happened after the election and was nothing sandwich. It was in his job description to interact with foreign diplomats, and his only mistake was trying to get a jump on his responsibilities rather than waiting for after his confirmation hearings. Many legal scholars say that because Flynn was part of the president elect's selected cabinet, he was not in violation of law and could have made a strong case and would have won any legal challenge to his actions (in the same way that every president elect, including Trump interacts legally with foreign countries/leaders even though he has not been sworn in yet). He resigned not because it was illegal or indicative of collusion with the Russians to throw the election but because he is an honorable man and didn't want it to be a distraction.

From now forward I suspect you will see some really brutal blow-back on all of the criminal felon leakers in the federal government, and you may see many from the Obama administration perp walked in handcuffs for leaking classified information and/or illegal wiretapping/lying on a federal warrant application and serving hard time in federal prison. Since day one, the Democrats and Obama appointees have been working to sabotage the government to prevent Trump from getting anything done, and they have been succeeding, but the jig appears to be up with the revelation that the Obama admin wiretapped Trump under false pretense during the election and systematically distributed classified information within the executive branch for the purposes of later leaking it to the press.

The Obama administration was empirically one of the least transparent, most corrupt administrations in modern history (lying on warrant applications and then wire tapping the AP and reporter James Rosen, anyone remember that?), and it appears that Trump is not going to give them a pass any more and is now directing the FBI and attorney general to begin investigating the misdeeds of the Obama administration.

In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.

Got data for this assertion?

My attempt to find backup for it produced a couple of lists. The list of states with the highest level of gun homicides (suicides not counted) are mostly Southern states, which are also all very pro-gun. The list of states with the lowest level of gun homicides are almost ALL rural Western and New England states, (most of which are also very pro-gun). So basically there's no evidence gun laws have any impact at all. It looks a lot like the difference is more cultural than legal.

I get this all the time.

When I do, I hit mother fuckers like you with eight links from other fact-checking sites that support the same position as snopes.

So fuck you.

First, you shouldn't be surprised if you get modded Troll for deliberately using a flamebait/trolling example that is wholly unrelated to the topic.

Second, you're deliberately confusing the issue. If I operate a business, and I sell pork products, and you buy a steak from me, you're not paying for pork, no matter how much you scream about marginal costs and fungible funds.

Third, you're creating a strawman argument, because Planned Parenthood does not primarily provide abortion services, attempts to play cute with the numbers aside. At most the number of PP patients who received an abortion was 12% of the total, and that's assuming none had more than 1.
Reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

And watch this get modded "Troll" since I used the inflammatory "Planned Parenthood / Abortion" example by people who can't actually debate the actual topic.

I don't know enough to discuss the example you provided, but can offer that the funding/expense for Planned Parenthood is probably more complicated than what you proposed and certainly open to skewed interpretation (especially by those opposed to their services -- specifically and, apparently, as a whole) as described by this article from Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...

The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.

Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?

A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

Seriously whatever crackerjack box your education came from get a refund, if your still in school complain. Speaking of that

You really should stop talking because the more you do the more stupid comes out speaking of which

All the name-calling in the world won't make an intelligent person vote for a demagogue whipping up a mob, only straight up fucking stupidity can do that.

I was able to come up with half a dozen Nobel prize winners without even trying. Just to put that in perspective that's people who are all to the right of you, on the bell curve . Do you even try to think or does that blood soaked lard between your ears only work in play back mode ?

My calling the spade attach to a keyboard that which it is doesn't change the fact that you still couldn't cite a single piece of evidence to support your... "Alternative" interpretation of the US electoral system.

If you work at it you may yet achieve literacy.

Unfortunately I can only read the abstract of the actual study but the article seems like crap. They state a bunch of opinions as fact. For example:

"Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million."

What more likely estimates? What is your source? There are a number of different agencies and groups that estimate about the same numbers, some of whom have a vested interest in inflating the number (like the DHS). From Wikipedia:

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has estimated that 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States in January 2012. According to DHS estimates, "the number of illegal immigrants peaked around 12 million in 2007 and has gradually declined to closer to 11 million." The DHS estimate "is in the same ballpark as several independent organizations that study illegal immigration, including Pew Research Center (11.3 million); the Center for Migration Studies (11 million), which studies migration and promotes policies that safeguard the rights of migrants, and the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for low levels of legal immigration (11–12 million)."

"Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too."

The data from Pew indicates that the number has either stayed level or gone down (at least in the years they are citing). Again - what is your source of this data?

"Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time"

Which "leftist" groups? What did they say? This might have happened but it seems foolish just to take this on faith, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I couldn't find too much relevant on Google (search terms "groups encouraging illegal voting california"), other than the claim (easily debunked) that Obama encouraged illegals to vote.

"Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so."

What is your evidence that that the site is "liberal"? Is it just because they said something that disagrees with your narrative? According to their about page, We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. and publicly list all sources of their funding here.

In summation, the article seems quite bogus with a number of seemingly false or unsourced claims. This is a great example of the biased news that the site seems to rail against, but only if they are biased to the left.

You mean to tell me you empoyer dropped health insurance coverage, saving itself a bundle, but didn't increase your salary? I would say you got fleeced by your employer. In reality employer sponsored premium growth has actually slowed down since the ACA http://www.factcheck.org/2015/... so not only they fleeced you, they lied to you as well. It had nothing to do with the ACA and everything to do with the suits getting big fat bonuses for "trimming costs" at your expense

Womble, we know that the fetus is viable on it's own after 20 weeks of gestation, so at that point, from a scientific standpoint the only difference between a fetus and a baby is location of residence and method of getting nutrients. Further, we have scientifically advanced our definition of human life (and human death) as the presence of lack of brain activity. For the fetus, this begins at around 6 weeks. Thus, from our current understanding and legal definition of human life, which we apply across the board to all human beings (except for the fetus, due to a mistake by 7 attorneys in black robes 43 years ago), human life begins at around 6 weeks after conception, and a fetus is certainly a human being at 20 weeks.

As you can tell I have a strong pro-life position, and I have thoroughly researched the issue as I personally had to make a choice on the issue of one life or another. 99% of pro-life advocates believe in exceptions for abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, where abortion is a sad but necessary procedure. We do not agree that abortion for the convenience of the mother or father is acceptable. Carrying to term and childbirth are difficult consequences for irresponsible unprotected sex, but adoption is a far better option for the mental and physical health of everyone involved over 99% of the time.

Just 2.8% of women surveyed claimed that their abortion was over concerns for maternal health in the one survey that is available on the subject. The actual stats are un-knowable because no solid studies have been performed thanks to the pro-abortion lobbies who want to obfuscate the issue. We do know that maternal childbirth related deaths in the US are at 0.0185% vs Brazil at 0.055% which has strict anti-abortion laws. Assuming all the difference has nothing to do with quality of health care or delivery facilities (which it doesn't), we are talking about a 0.037% difference in maternal childbirth mortality rates. You and I think nothing of jumping in a car where your risk of dying over three years of driving is 0.033% or about the delta in risk rates. The odds of dying from a legal abortion are higher but comparable with any invasive medical procedure. Again, impossible to find exact stats due to obfuscation at the highest levels. These numbers for medically necessary abortions hardly scratch the surface on the 54,000,000 abortions since Roe v Wade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...
http://www.politifact.com/new-...
http://riskcalculator.facs.org...

The fact that you have to attack a person's religious beliefs instead of simply using facts like I have above shows just how weak your pro-abortion position is. Science since 1973 continues to show that the practice of abortion on demand is taking the life of another human being. There is a reason that no federal law has ever been passed making abortion legal, and that is that anyone who spends time actually digging into the facts (or who becomes pregnant and watches the ultrasound) can conclude that a fetus is a human life. In 100 years, society will look back at abortion in much the same way we look back at slavery. Amazed and disgusted that a civilized society could condone the savage abuse of a innocent, defenseless portion of the population for convenience.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pr...

Medical and insurance costs have been rising for decades. Overall, under ACA/Obamacare, they rose more slowly. There are outlier cases on both sides, and of course the ones you hear the most about are from the people who see unusually higher costs. I'm one of the other outliers; but my costs went down considerably and my access to healthcare went up. Same for my SO.

The situation is far from perfect. The ACA either needs tweaks, or we need to transition to a socially responsible form of single payer, which means straight-up tax-based medical care. What we don't need is a return to pre-existing condition death and suffering consequences, and under/non-cared-for poor people.

I thought Ford was the only one who didn't take a bailout? GM and Chrysler got billions shoveled at them, but Ford didn't take any of the 2008 money...

Ford tried to make a commercial on that. It was their pointlessly hypocritical appeal to American pride. Truth was more complicated.

But go ahead, stroke your piston, and think the bowtie brigade was a bunch of winners.

They ended that campaign early. It was just needless antagonism leading people to point out their deceit.