Slashdot Mirror

And, whoever it was, there's no concrete indication of bias. It could be simply that the Rs didn't fall for phishing, had better secured systems, or there was nothing interesting there.

There's nothing to indicate any of the documents were manufactured. If the Ds hadn't done anything wrong, they wouldn't have been hurt by the leaks. When Brazile got caught unethically feeding debate questions to HRC, she lied about it, digging the hole deeper - perhaps she's a Manchurian operative of the Russians. It wasn't the Russians who put classified emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop. It wasn't the Russians who made HRC lie about the emails on her private server, or lie about deleting evidence which was under subpoena.

And, the press reporting is laughable. Donna Brazile:"They came after us absolutely every day until the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly." That went through the press with absolutely no critical commentary. Hell, I'm being targeted every day by dozens of attempts to hack in (primarily ssh). But I don't take it personally, or blame it on the Russians, or the Mexicans, or the Tadjikistanis, or the British, or the Koreans (actual sources of the most recent attempts). With no evidence presented, we're expected to take the word of the same "intelligent" people who claimed Saddam had WMD? It wouldn't surprise me that their secret evidence was no more than where the netblock of incoming hacking attempts was located. That means nothing.

Finally, there's no evidence that the influence on the election was any different than that of the political advertisements being run every day by candidates and PACs. If anything, it provided info which would have gotten a journalist positive recognition for bringing wrongdoing to light.

"Automation my ass. You smartphone is still hand-assembled. Just 'cause the work doesn't happen here where you can see it doesn't mean that nobody does it."
Except that *those* people don't vote where you or I live so they may as well be machines, or slaves

Trump's been saying loudly he's going to bring those jobs back? Talk is cheap. I've heard a lot of crap come out of his mouth in the past 40+ years.
I don't recall any of it being about rescuing the working man and he's never bothered to make sure the stuff he puts his name on is all made in America.

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

But clothing manufacturing has been having something of a resurgence in the USA in the past few years - during the same period & under the same person whose birth certificate hunt was such a preoccupation for Donald Trump

Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?

No.

It's much easier to explain than an off-the-wall guess like that.

The fossil fuel industry is in its death throes and putting up a fight.

Your first clue would be Trump's proposed nomination for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

The second would be his choice for Energy Secretary, former governor of Texas Rick Perry.

Third up: Head of EPA, Scott Pruitt.

So ... it's not the water.

It's the money.

I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.

But that's the thing, too many people on the Trump side are explaining it as...something it is not. That's what has come up here.

Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.

She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.

The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins.

Ah, you should look at some maps..

Pretty
pictures.
ok

This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.

Well, it's not because they love Donald Trump. He's now not unfavorable by 2/3 of the country! That's soaring...to new lows.

Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.

You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.

Bzzt, error, error. You're in the wrong section of the thread. This is the section of the thread where we're talking about how Trump's win is not a landslide, is not clearly showing how the American people are speaking, and ultimately how Trump's a lying braggart.

I mean, if you want to discuss something, we could ask ourselves why Wisconsin has the lowest turnout since 2000. Why Michigan had so many problems. Why Pennsylvania election officials lied to potential voters. We could do that. But we won't.

Eight years ago these people mocked McCain as "out of touch" for his reluctance to use a computer...

Turns out, they need two layers of aides themselves to be able to tell an e-mail scam... Hypocrite scum.

Right. And then I'm supposed to believe that the well-written "answers" from "Hillary Clinton" on Quora are really from Hillary herself - someone who demonstrably is baffled by a fax machine.

Eight years ago these people mocked McCain as "out of touch" for his reluctance to use a computer...

Turns out, they need two layers of aides themselves to be able to tell an e-mail scam... Hypocrite scum.

If the argument was that Al Gore had a particularly high level of environmental impact relative to his wealth and other factors worthy of consideration (his job, where he lives, etc), then that would absolutely be grounds for charges of hypocrisy.

They already tried that, with their campaign about houses. It was making the rounds a few years ago, but is now shockingly obsolete.

They don't even like hearing that Bush moved to a new house, or that if Al Gore wants, he could pay for dozens of homes to be improved to save more energy than shutting down his house.

See, I said GM paid back all their loans. Not TARP as a whole, which is what you're referring to.

And they did:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/...
"Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule."

Hell, remember not long back, Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on the no fly list....and I'm sure the average citizen couldn't get themselves off it as easily as he did and it took him a bit of time as I understand it.

Your memories are a bit off, it was twelve years ago and the selectee list for additional screening since it was a known alias. And the reason it took a bit of time was that they had poor communications, even for the time.

Of course, the idiocy of relying on such a vague identifier is obvious, but when did that stop Republicans? They're still doing it for voter lists.

So are you assuming that a US organization 'advocating for the Latino community' is 'pro--Mexican'? Why?

Note that the group specifically disclaims the label: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

And an interesting quote from that article I hadn't seen before:
Dickerson, June 5: My question is, if it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?
Trump: It's possible, yes. Yes. That would be possible, absolutely.

----------
Let's rewind this back to your original statement:
Criticizing a judge who belongs to La Raza is not racism.
On its own, that statement is correct; there are legitimate criticisms that could be made about such an organization, especially if they had taken any controversial positions (which doesn't seem to be the case here). But Trump didn't really attempt any legitimate criticism. He tried to cover his bigotry with the claim about the judge's membership, but he didn't do that well at all.

As I said, any rational reading of his words is that his primary objection was based on the judges ethnicity.

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Oh, FUCK YOU :

Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House. ...

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

So your defense of the Clintons is effectively: they got away with stealing $76,000 worth of stuff.

You're too dumb to know how dumb you are, aren't you?

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Even leftist Snopes has this to say, from your own damn link:

The Clintons voluntarily returned or paid for some gifts due to dispute over whether they had been given to the Clintons personally or to the U.S.

"voluntarily" my ass - AFTER they were busted.

You lamely failed at refuting ONE of the GP's points - what about all the others?

What about Hillary approving the sale of US uranium production to Putin's oligarchs after they donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Slush Fund, err, Foundation?

You pathetic piece of shit. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult shit like that.)

Was your mother on Thalidomide? Your brain development seems limited.

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

She voted for Bush's gulf war. She's a warmonger.

... so did he.

OMG! That's simply not true! Horses!? WTF? You're either lying or willfully ignorant. Here are just a handful of citations that support my statement:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11...

http://www.history.com/topics/...

http://www.historycentral.com/...

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

Show me what you got that supports your Horseback premise. Take your time...

Keystone XL provides essentially no tax revenue to the US, and exports raw, unrefined crude oil.

Think about this. You claim that oil from this pipeline will go straight to port bypassing many competitive, high volume refineries. So somehow it's better to ship low value crude to some distant port than higher value refined products? Or for that matter, perpetually ignoring the US market this whole time even though it's likely to frequently offer better prices than those foreign destinations?

Everyone involved in the debate on Keystone XL agrees that the oil will be refined. The debate, silly as it is, about whether the refined products are exported is what is disagreed upon.

The fact is that most if not all of the Canadian crude is designated to be processed in U.S. refineries, not exported directly. But a large portion of the diesel fuel, gasoline and other products of those refineries is indeed expected to be sold overseas. Exactly how much is impossible for us to predict, however. And expert sources are in disagreement.

and note this

Using NRDCâ(TM)s assumptions, and data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we calculate that 50.4 percent of the output of those refineries went for export in 2014. But that means 49.6 percent stayed in the U.S.

So even ignoring the refining, half of existing oil that goes through these refineries ends up in the US. No point to making an argument that is so broken.

I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.

I'll make you a counter-deal -- if I can find an example of the media pointing out problems with "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor", you'll admit that there might be a problem with misleading news on Facebook, yes? Here we go:

Even back in 2009, ABC News, and FactCheck.org were asking tough questions about the Obama administrations' statements on health care reform. In 2013, Politifact awarded the claim, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its 'Lie of the Year', and had been rating the claims that people would be able to keep their plans as 'half true' since at least August of 2009.

See? Easy. There are obviously other examples than the four I've linked above, but I assume I've made my point.

For you to say that the media wasn't covering the story about the Obama administration's statements on healthcare is simply not true, and it's a good example of exactly why many people, including myself, are concerned about misleading news on Facebook. Bandying about half truths and lies as if they were facts isn't going to help anyone, and if you really believe we should only listen to the biggest and most successful liars out there, than I have a couple of bridges and some fine, very nice land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

The one who is daft is you. It wasn't about the states, it was about the people not having enough information about a presidential candidate because of the lack of communication technology. The example given is perfect:

It was a compromise made toward the end of the constitutional convention in a committee, when the attendees were getting anxious to leave. The major sticking point was concern about too much democracy. The founders feared the "rabble" and what they worried about the most was that, given technology at the time, there was no way for people from South Carolina to know anything about a candidate from Delaware or vice versa.

They were concerned presidential elections would become free-for-alls among a dozen candidates representing different parts of the country and they would not be focused on the national interest, but on pleasing the constituents from their region. So the founders wanted some kind of indirect election method for the President, providing an extra layer of vetting from the "right" kind of person, but one that still featured some acknowledgement of the will of the populace. They argued about how exactly that would work on and off most of the convention, and the committee of eleven wrapped it up toward the end with the system as we know it.

Or, in the words of a former Secretary of the Treasury, who said the president should be elected:

"by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In other words, nothing to do with the states, directly, but rather the fear a candidate could appeal to certain groups and thus, tyranny of the majority.

With today's diverse population, and as this election has shown, that tyranny exists despite the electoral college since the person who gets the majority of votes in a state gets all the state's electoral votes (except for Maine who divides its votes).

Why don't we just lock everybody's homepage to https://www.factcheck.org/ and be done with it?

Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets.

Whatever most States do, it is enough for one (or two) of them to be sufficiently close to warrant a recount or a legal action, and the national results may be delayed by days and weeks.

Unless, of course, the fix is so in, even any of the above eventualities will not matter. Given Google's being deeply and solidly in tank with one of the candidates, this may be more probable than is healthy for the democratic process...

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...

You are either a worthless piece of shit liar, or a complete fucking idiot.... or both. When you wonder what is wrong with this country... look in the mirror. Worthless piece of shit with no integrity.

No, that's another example of the strange fantasy world which the right has created. Take one number, the worst one from a single study, and repeat it endlessly as if it was written in stone and agreed by everyone.

The 'strange fantasy world' in which Obama said it, Hillary said it, who else do you need?

Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes.

So we are supposed to believe that the VP office did not produce emails for days on end during some of the most critical time stretches of the Iraq war?

Who has been lead around on the nose exactly?

The number of classified emails that went through Hillary's server are BTW 22. Most of them were not classified at the time, the once that were didn't have the classification in the header, they were only marked in the body.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

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

Remind me who called your constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" and which party he belonged to.

=

Most likely? Nobody in particular. You've been taken in by a myth. Of course, it is inaccurate as the original was written on parchment. Still, it is important to remember that it is neither sacred, nor necessarily profound. It does have its flaws. Hard though it may be for some to admit.

Justice Ginsburg did suggest looking to other models for writing a constitution, but that's not offensive, on language alone, there is considerable room for improvement, and some of the awkward choices are not appropriate in other contexts. Still, it was treated in a most unfortunate manner, as of t was disrespectful, when to the contrary, an examination of our principles is the proper choice for those who would make claims to liberty. Thus we must remember not to fall into the trap that can be made from sanctimony.

So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.

Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false and false. Meanwhile, Trump chose as his campaign manager Paul Manafort, a consultant to Yanukovitch (including being earmarked for over $12m in payments from a slush fund uncovered after Yanukovitch fled), his foreign policy advisor (Carter Page) works (present tense) for Gazprom, one of Trump's sons talked about his father having to focus on loans from Russia when he couldn't get them from the US, and how heavily they rely on Russian investment, Trump Soho turned out in court to be a money laundering organization for Russian criminals (Trump followed up by hiring its principal partner into the Trump organization), Trump bragged during a meeting in Russia that “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, numerous Trump businesses have been financed by Russian oligarchs, Trump has repeatedly called Putin a great leader, both in isolation (without comparison to other US leaders), and in comparison to not only Obama, but Bush as well; Trump advisors intervened in the Republican Party platform on precisely one issue, that being to weaken references to supporting Ukraine; Trump claims that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine, and has endorsed Russia's Syria policy. Not to mention thinks NATO is obsolete. Oh, and whole "we don't know who did the hack, maybe it was China, maybe it was a 400 pound guy in his bedroom" line? He had already been given an intelligence briefing where US officials explicitly told him it was Russia. And then there's his knack for getting ahold of Russian propaganda faster than anyone else, like when he walked into a rally waving around a report on Clinton that had only been published (and later retracted) by Sputnik International.

For all your propaganda that's too bad even for Russian propaganda outlets to push, Trump has your back.

That is not, and I quote, "she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening". Nor is that anything other than a hasty "PIs ask your econ team to review." written by Hillary. That's the chair of the commodities trading commission, sending information to the Secretary of State, on a topic that it was her job to deal with, and her forwarding it to her team. Yes, the secretary of state's job is to stay on top of the most major international political issues of the time, for crying out loud - how can you possibly think otherwise? Or did you think that Greece was not one of the most (actually, *the* most) pressing international political issues of the time? She was repeatedly and regularly dispatch to meet with Greek and other European officials on the topic.

The fact that her son in law made bad choices of investments in Greece despite being related to a top US government official should make it obvious how little communication there was between the two on the issue. But no, because she talked to an aide, and that aide talked to someone who works on the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea is in the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea's husband is investing in Greece, that means that Hillary Clinton was carefully manipulating Greek investment funds with insider info - it's all so obvious!

The other thing you linked is also not anything written by Hillary. It's about how a Canadian company (who had given to the Clinton foundation) was bought by the Russians, and in the process a number of different US government officials signed off on the sale - one of them being Clinton. Wow, stop the presses, clearly that's totally like having an email saying "If you give me money, I'll approve your sale"! Do you realize how many things the Secretary of State's office has to sign off on? She didn't even have veto power on the deal. And do you know how many different donors have given to the Clinton foundation (which, by the way, is not "money to the Clintons" - it's a charity that Charity Watch gives it's highest possible rating, unlike Trump's charity, which was basically a scam and was recently delisted by the government of New York, which is also investigating criminal charges)?

    Both Fact Check and Politifact call the accusations concerning Uranium One that this was some sort of corrupt deal false.

This exactly. We already know that Hillary has lied to congress (said she turned over all her emails while holding thousands of classified, work emails back; that's a felony)

a) I don't know where you get thousands of classified work emails, there were thousands of deleted work related emails, but there's no reason to believe they were classified.

b) It's only a lie if she deliberately held them back, I see no reason to assume so. In fact I'm not even certain she meant for them to be deleted. The contractor who carried out the deletion did so because the retention policy was changed to 60 days (and those emails were older than 60 days). But they were previously told to preserve the emails from that time period. The contract might have simply misunderstood.

and now, a disenfranchised DNC member (Seth Rich) leaked information to Wikileaks showing how Hillary stole the primary from Bernie Sanders and when Hillary found out about it she or someone else at the DNC had him murdered.

... and here comes the crazy talk

(and the DNC dumps didn't even show anything particularly bad!)

or vote for a libertarian like Gary Johnson who actually wants to protect the constitution and the freedoms that it gives us.

And who is a non-serious goofball who's dangerously ignorant of foreign affairs (ie the place where the President actually has a ton of power).

The two party system only works until we stop voting like lemmings for one or the other and pick the best candidate.

The two party system works if you pick the best of the two candidates, to do otherwise is shooting yourself in the foot.

If you actually want to fix the system reduce the division of powers that gives veto power to unaccountable legislators.

The Republican congress has spent the last 8 years sabotaging the government because they know that a dysfunctional government creates an anti-incumbent backlash and the non-Presidential party is perceived as the opposition. It's about as bad an incentive structure as you can imagine.

This is a pretty absurd set of lies.

1. The Clintons aren't receiving funds from the Clinton Foundation.>br> 2. The money trail out of the Clinton Foundation is very clear, irrespective of the trail in.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

Do you just make up whatever you feel like, or do you get this from someone else having made it up?

Dave Kelsen
--
If you fall for a clown, don't be surprised if he makes fun of your feelings.

That "side to the story" is that if you cherry pick and manipulate your data enough, you can make something innocuous seem shady. The Clinton Foundation only gives a fraction of its money to other charities, because it spends most of the money on its own charitable projects:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

: A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports.

And the Clinton foundation rings up at ...89%! Pretty damn good according to your scale. Maybe next time read more than a tweet to understand a story...or continue just reading the tweets and shuffle them neatly into your simplistic and pre-determined world view. Bunch of words coming everyone who's dug in, feel free to tune out...

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes.

What DID The Donald say?

Matthews: Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

Trump: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

Matthews: How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe?

Trump: I — I’m not going to take it off the table.

Matthews: You might use it in Europe?

The guy worked for an MSP ( Platte River Networks ), he wasn't even a private contractor. What this does show is that Hillary Clinton cares even less about national security then anyone previously thought. At least a direct hire would have shown some foresight toward limiting the number of jokers with access to these documents. But no, what does this retard do? She outsources it to a bunch of garage sale technicians working at a glorified call center.

Except that only a few documents were found to be marked classified. And even those were not necessarily marked properly or true classified communications (see link below). By all accounts she used the secure computers at the state department to discuss classified information and the private one for day to day crap. Seems to me that she took the necessary precautions to ensure that classified materials were not sent via her private email server. Of course, lets not let facts interfere with a good story or politics....

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

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

Yeah, but Duke has a "real connection" to Trump, right?

Wasn't really the problem.

More an issue that Trump handled it poorly. Trump's amnesia for David Duke..

Even his VP can't do it.

But as far as I know, Hillary Clinton doesn't that problem, she's already identified Jeremiah Wright.

Yeah, 4 years ago. At this point shit Hillary said 4 years ago is claimed to be racism if Trump says it.

What's amazing to me is that Trump is easily the worst candidate the GOP could come up with - definitely within my life time - and they still have to make stupid stuff up about him. He's bad enough in reality.

Yeah, but Duke has a "real connection" to Trump, right?

Wasn't really the problem.

More an issue that Trump handled it poorly. Trump's amnesia for David Duke..

Even his VP can't do it.

But as far as I know, Hillary Clinton doesn't that problem, she's already identified Jeremiah Wright.

story about the start of birther movement.

Sounds like Clinton supporters started it. You wiling to take claim you are a racist because you and others like you who support Clinton are racist? OR now you have facts you realize that maybe it isn't the case.

The claim is Clinton herself started the birther movement, I have yet to see it disproven. What is proven is Clinton supporters were the original ones passing it around in 2008 during the primaries, Clinton never told them to stop. If birther = racist, then Clinton = racist, and you = racist.

"So universal insurance is as bad as no insurance, right? Not so fast. For one thing, survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer."

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

They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.

Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.

The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.

No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?

Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.

Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.

"could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information"

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly. She, having had the statutory authority to determine what's classified or not with the stroke of a pen (Original Classification Authority) doesn't remember any of the training and couldn't be assed to declassify what she told her subordinates to email her. If she had any integrity, at all, she should shoot herself.

Oh look another person rooting for the death of a presidential candidate. I'd really hate to be a secret service agent in these days and time. I know, as usual, this comment will probably get down modded to -1. Anything I write supporting Clinton tends to, but simply put the whole conversation about Hillary and Trump is so insanely biased as to be barely calculable.

You know what a hundred times more about Hillary than Trump? It is insane. There is a whole industry funded by the right to examine everything about Hillary that is obtainable to find the best bits that can be used to attack her. The very fact that she has survived such a storm is amazing. With Hillary they have to attack things that are years old. With Trump you can barely keep up with the crazy crap he said last week.

With Hillary they attack and attack and attack, but never give her accomplishments any credit. She did a decent job as a secretary of state. Her families foundation has saved countless lives. The health care she initially championed and Obama got in has no doubt saved countless others. The SCHIP program likely has saved countless more childrens lives.

What has Trump done that compares? His most significant accomplishment is being a very accomplishment con man. That seems to be the key to Trump Inc. His two most recent cons were making a lot of people believe that birther crap. (Where are the crack investigators you sent Mr. Trump?) The other one is making people believe that he would somehow fix their problems by a magic wall and then getting Mexico to pay for it. Both were truly audacious and impressive cons.

The wall would likely cost every Mexican taxpayer something like nine hundred dollars if you assume around 42 billion cost and 46.3 million taxpayers from Mexico.

It ain't gonna happen. The average salary in Mexico is $843 a month. mexico income. Do you really think they have the spare cash to help us? What's in it for them?

Even if they wanted to donate that kind of money, which they don't. They have $350 billion in debt. Why the hell would they increase that to around $400 billion just to help the US? The only way to get them to pay for the wall is to invade, and it would probably be cheaper just to pay for it ourselves.

Seriously? The very concept is ridiculous, yet people on slashdot want that for their leader? As trump might say. Sad.

FFS, bash Obama all you want but at least get your facts straight.

Note the number of AC posts, and remember that Correct The Record (super PAC created by David Brock that pays internet trolls to argue with critics of Clinton) has killed discussion critical of Clinton in the politics subreddit and others (like Sanders4President) using purchased and fake accounts.

And if you want to know how pervasive the propaganda is, just try to find a recent, useful page from an unbiased source describing Correct the Record using a search engine, and note that despite the critique of and importance of CTR, it somehow doesn't have its own wikipedia entry.

Let’s set the facts straight.

1: A CEO’s role (in a publicly traded firm) is to MAKE MONEY.. Jobs just happen to be incidental to that. (ie: we need to expand, and we can’t automate everything.. or the cost to automate would be too high, so we hire people... but if we can get them cheaper, lets do so.. which includes H1B’s, chopping salaries as much as possible, and in the case of Donald.. constant law suits and stiffing those he has a financial obligation to). The president is beholden to the ENTIRE country.. both the big and the small.. and in some cases, can't just abort/reverse course on the military/economic actions of his predecessors.

I’m not trying to sway anything here, but lets be realistic.. its not like the clock resets when a new president enters the office.. and almost NO president has ever “immediately reversed course” from an action of his predecessor.. most roll with the punches, work around it, or let it expire/laps

2: A CEO has (as much as Labor/OSHA laws and other legal/industry rules allow) total control over the a wide number of factors.. however they seldom have direct control over their customers choosing their business.. they can market/advertise/lobby.. but at the of the day, they are beholden to a customer that can be fickle. The president has, in the actual world, very little power.. he can suggest, propose, pen, even push bills through executive order.. but ultimately its going to come down to the Senate and Congress (and in the case of executive order, Judicial review on even if he CAN do that) So the president in most cases is a figure head.. or the king in chess, the most critical piece, but certainly NOT the most powerful.

Now on to your "sucking up to Terrorist Bill Ayers" comment. Well, that's just not even remotely true and certainly shows a lack of reading/wanting to understand the facts. So I would suggest some homework. Perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and even http://www.snopes.com/politics....

And finally the whole "Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright", again, I refer you to some homework: http://www.politifact.com/pund..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.

But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”

Yes, Bush punted and Obama didn't want to take away all reconstruction aid to force Iraq to capitulate. But cut to the chase.... BUSH negotiated and signed the force agreement that mandated troops be removed, and while his people HOPED it could be renegotiated, that doesn't absolve him from negotiating and signing it.

There's a lot of worthless fucking partisans out there who want to "misremember" that Bush got us into this whole fucking mess a long time before Obama was even thinking about being on the scene. I can't tell sometimes if they're all just natural born fucking liars, or their simply too fucking stupid to use their brains.

You mean voter fraud like this? Or this? Or this?

Since you say that voter fraud is "well known" and "documented every goddamn election", perhaps you can share some of these documented cases that have been investigated and found to be true and describe the prison sentences the criminals who committed this fraud received.

But anyway, if you wanted to steal an election, I don't think voter impersonation would be the way to do it. Attacking electronic voting machines that have lax, minimal, or no security would probably be less risky and harder to prove if you attacked whatever logging mechanism was present.

Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"

I suspect making an offer that no reasonable prosecutor could refuse falls into that category.

hiLIARy sent and email instructing her staff to remove the classified marking from documents so they could send them unsecure.
FBI Director James Comey testified that there were 3 classified emails that had portion markings on them, that would happen only if her employees removed the header and footer markings of a classified document and missed some of the portion markings in an effort to send them unsecure.

Dude? That rescue team was made up. Four guys with 2 pistols that just came in country does not a rescue team make. Here's what happened from the senate hearings. Abbreviated of course. I'm still wondering what the Ambassador was doing at a CIA safe house 90 miles away from his Embassy without his full security detail. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

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

There's mixed results in studies done in Australia. So, let's not draw conclusions from a single one. The jury's still out.

Story about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes.

Did you link to the right article? I see some bad things for her, but not the stuff you were talking about.

1) The foundation wasn't supposed to accept foreign government donations, she didn't. Though she may have taken donations from people who had connections to foreign companies with significant government ties.

2) The foundation was supposed to publicly disclose all the donations to the foundation, apparently this guy who donated, a Canadian, reported on his tax form that he made a bunch of donations that the foundation didn't publicly disclose. I don't know if this was a mistake, deliberate, or some kind of misunderstanding.

3) During this period Bill Clinton got a $500k fee to speak to a Russian bank.

4) There's nothing I saw there about hers or the foundation's taxes. I have no idea where you got the idea she hid something on her taxes.

All the bad looking stuff is Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation, accepting donations or work from people who had a connection to businesses who might be affected by the State Department.

As for "approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider". She was only one of multiple people who had a say on the approval. If anything her fighting it would have been the more unusual action.

I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal.

Because it's the only scandal, where after a critical investigation, there's evidence that she really did do something wrong.

Her problem is most politicians do everything they can to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons on the other hand, Bill in particular, don't really seem to care about the appearance because they think they'll be attacked regardless.

So you get stuff like this where Bill Clinton is constantly dealing with a bunch of people he should really be avoiding. I don't think Hillary was biased when it came to doing her job, but it does lead to some fishy optics.

Well Gingrich saw the way that the Republican party was becoming more ant-science and changed his tune.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/...