Slashdot Mirror

Immigrants, documented or not, tend to commit crimes at a smaller rate than native born Americans.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018...

As we said, there aren’t readily available nationwide crime statistics broken down by immigration status. But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates.

So what benefits has Puten received?? Clinton sold Uranium 1 to Russians meanwhile Trump is making it difficult for Russia.

Sounds like Puten would have been much better off under Crooked Hillary

*sighs*

Another of the same old lies, repeated, again.

Uranium 1 Fackcheck. In short, your wrong. Of course by this time you likely know that your lying and don't particularly care. Props to you. I hear sociopathy is good for your career.

Crooked Hillary is just one of those well kindergarten (err Trump) style insults that has no meaning. The fact is she did a credible job as secretary of state. The fact is that Trump is currently rated by historians as dead last. link

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

You want non-Snopes sources then?

Q: Did House passage of H.R. 1 allow noncitizens to vote?

A: No. That bill would enact a host of changes to election laws, but it does not permit noncitizens to vote.

Misinformation Follows House Approval of H.R. 1

The confusion regarding noncitizens stems from the use of a legislative maneuver, known as a motion to recommit, that represented the last opportunity for the Republicans to amend the bill before it was passed.

On March 8, the same day the House cast its final vote on the bill, Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a Motion to Recommit H.R. 1 to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language condemning voting by “illegal immigrants.”

But “sense of Congress” provisions, such as the one offered by Crenshaw, have “no force of law,” as explained in a Congressional Research Service report.

“A ‘sense of’ resolution is not legally binding because it is not presented to the President for his signature,” the CRS report said. “Even if a ‘sense of’ provision is incorporated into a bill that becomes law, such provisions merely express the opinion of Congress or the relevant chamber. They have no formal effect on public policy and have no force of law.”

Federal law explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and no state has allowed it since the 1920s.

That was very generous of them to call it "confusion". I'm beginning to suspect Crenshaw isn't very honest:

Crenshaw falsely says HR1 would legalize the type of election fraud found in NC

And it seems Republicans don't want people to vote:

Republicans freak out over HR1: They don't want America to have fair elections

I did a little research and from what I can tell, the left has distorted the study they use to imply costs would be less.

Now, if you could site your sources as to the opposite, I would be happy to read them.

Both legal and illegal immigrants in this country commit less crime than its native citizens ( https://www.chicagotribune.com... , https://www.factcheck.org/2018... ). Couple that with the fact that our crime rate peaked in the 80's and is now at a relative post war low ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... ) and it becomes pretty clear that what you're getting at isn't even close to correct.

Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.

What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around). Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics. Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.

Assume that you build a wind park that lasts 25 years during which it has an almost inconsequential carbon footprint. If you then renew that wind park after 25 years and replace it with one that lasts 35 years because of improvements in material science during the proceeding 25 years the old one was chugging along, whatever carbon footprint those two wind parks had from production to recycling will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of operating a coal fired power plant for 60 years. There is just no way you can argue that building coal fired power plants causes the same or even less of a carbon or other pollution footprint than wind and solar. Plus, our problem is not the carbon footprint caused during production or recycling. It is the carbon emissions generated during decades of service life that is the problem and here a wind park has undeniable advantages. The carbon footprint of a wind turbine in production is about 11 g CO2/kWh, the carbon footprint of a coal fired plant is 870 g CO2/kWh (Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2018...). The carbon footprint of a coal fired power plant is almost two orders of magnitude greater than that of a wind turbine alternative. That makes the choice between the two types of power plant kind of a no-brainer especially since the wind turbine generated electricity is cheaper than coal generated electricity.

You start out by asking for some math how about this as a starting place:
https://dqydj.com/scripts/fullhtml/base_2015_negativeincometax.html

It's an open source calculator, which shows its assumptions and has some documentation:
https://dqydj.com/negative-income-tax-cost-calculator-united-states/

You will argue it's not a multi-thousand page report, and that's valid. You might argue it's not well enough studied, I think most would agree with you. However, keep in mind that we've already done this kind of experiment once in the united states. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit. From what I can tell, we didn't do the serious studying your suggesting we would need to do when we put the EITC into place. Instead we just did it very slowly. We could so something of similar kind for UBI. That would take away the risk of it blowing up and the need to huge amounts of study.

Say for example a 1% tax increase with a x dollar check included in every tax return, rising every year for the next 15-20 years then having the payout tied to inflation. At the same time you'd roll back other programs, such as taking away x dollars of social security payout. While we could fill in all of pieces, that isn't our jobs as citizens. That's the job of our legislature and executive branches, they have the resources.

The last element I want to address is if our legislation should bother to investigate this when you clearly think this is a risky option. I'd suggest you compare this to the Trump tax cuts, which were put in place based upon a theory that they would pay for themselves when no serious study suggested that could happen. Why would you hold this legislation to a higher bar than the way our existing legislation is produced at?

Clinton had one _projected_ balanced budget (if you included SS accounting tricks), but it never happened.

Nope
But please, keep lying. I'm sure someone will not bother doing a simple google search and believe you.

Yeah, where is your citation?

This outlines much of the mishandling that no one reasonable or informed disputes (and from a source I know you'll approve of).

Clinton’s Handling of Classified Information

Not is not. I know plenty of people who mishandled classified material and their punishment was a write-up that went on on their permananet record with their employer.

Hillary and her staff don't count. Joking aside, what Hillary did went well beyond a slap on the wrist, but that's just what she got. It was so serious multiple IGs became involved and the Obama DOJ was actually forced to investigate her.

Apples and oranges, but you knew that.

by illegally bussing in voters to vote for them

that is complete bullshit.

I am not going to waste any time refuting the rest of your Gish gallop. Your claim that illegal voters were bused in has no basis in fact, so you obviously have no concern about objective truth or fact.

Right here — the site makes a point that the process Hillary Clinton has employed "does not use chemicals" — counting the accusation of "acid-washing" as inaccurate on that basis.

Fake news?

In denial?

Even worse factcheck.org has it right here , and it is just bad https://www.factcheck.org/2016...

You say Democratic Trolls do not exist. Might I introduce you to Correct The Record?

https://www.factcheck.org/2016...

Like Jill Stein's investigation that found more blue votes than there were voters.

That's total bullshit and you're a goddamn liar. The story has been debunked over and over.

"So the discrepancy, while newsworthy, had nothing to do with the number of votes tallied exceeding the number of registered voters (an impossibility in a fair election), but rather the number of voters recorded by poll workers exceeding the number of voters recorded by voting machines (a circumstance that suggested errors on the part of machines and/or human workers rather than fraud)."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Further, this has been an ongoing trope all throughout the Fox News era. They try to sling that bullshit every time a Democrat gets more votes than the Republican, and fact checkers have to shoot it down again and again.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013...

Baloney. You were either lucky, not paying attention, or still on your mom's plan. I remember premiums rising rapidly under Clinton, Bush and Obama. There was no difference in the rate of increase. It was (is) huge yearly increases under all recent administrations. I know this because I paid the premiums. However, since one example is not a statistic there is fact check: https://www.factcheck.org/2015...

There were two people from Goldman Sachs hired by the Obama Administration: Gary Gensler, who chaired the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Phil Murphy, who was made U.S. ambassador to Germany, and in fact progressives did object to them, as well as the few others hired from other Wall Street firms.

But the "plenty of Goldman Sachs employees", if "plenty" is more than two is false.

The accusation of the Obama Administration being loaded with Wall Street types was a popular, and false, line of attack by right-wing propaganda groups! Talk about hypocrisy!

I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook."

Here and here.

Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty.

Using correlations between state level political choices and poverty to try to make arguments about causation is utterly silly. Try again.

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... [factcheck.org] . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.

No, you're simply the type not to understand statistics. Let's take the first number: "The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs." Sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the US population grew by about 20 million people during Obama's presidency, so this is below what was needed simply to keep the labor participation rate the same.

Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... [kff.org] , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... [healthaffairs.org] ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... [aarp.org] ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.

The Medicare budget is $1055 billion and the Medicaid budget is $579 billion. There are 326 million Americans. When you do the math, you get $5000/American.

Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.

You're right: I was imprecise. We have a fully privatized system, albeit a corrupt one. What I meant was that our two realistic alternatives are a fully nationalized system (like the UK and France) or a minimally regulated free market system. And a minimally regulated free market system would lower costs so much that even the poorest Americans could afford it.

"I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.

I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook.". Clearly you're an intelligent person who wouldn't just make shit up because your ideology says you should not like something, right?

"Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"?"

Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty. Meanwhile encouraging people to participate in our Democratic process is about as American as you can get and doing so with the people least likely to participate even more so.

"We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not."

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.

"We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that."

Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.

Even if we ignore your ridiculous claim of per American and look at per user it's actually pretty impressive how low that $11,000 is given that by design medicare exclusively serves our highest cost demographics.

"There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those."

Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.

Obama ... caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs...

Not according to fact check:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017...

While it is true that citizens are able to check a box to register to vote when they get their driver's license or state ID, the non-citizen versions of those IDs do not come with that privilege. Non-citizens are unable to register to vote and are unable to vote. But I can understand your mistake because conservative media leaves that incredibly important detail out when fearmongering.

You are correct in saying that San Francisco recently allowed non-citizens with children in school to vote in school board elections, but you are incorrect in suggesting that they can vote in more than just those school board elections. Details matter.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018...

https://www.factcheck.org/2008... Notice this is from 2008, way before the previous election? The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nationâ(TM)s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called âoefactions,â which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madisonâ(TM)s fear â" which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed âoethe tyranny of the majorityâ â" was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could âoesacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.â Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: âoeA republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.â As Alexander Hamilton writes in âoeThe Federalist Papers,â the Constitution is designed to ensure âoethat the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.â The point of the Electoral College is to preserve âoethe sense of the people,â while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen âoeby 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.â

I'm not arguing if they deserve the wage. I'm talking about the politician spouses that talk the big talk about forgoing the private sector to work in the public sector because of how much they care.

I remember Michelle Obama talking about how she rejected private sector jobs to work in the public sector and how she did that because she cared about people more than money.

That said, she was making over 300 grand annually in the public sector.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009...

The popular vote doesn't count and the American voters know that.

Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened five times.

Russia did not throw the vote.

Let's face it, OK?: The 2016 election cycle was totally bizarre in that all three top contenders were toxic.

Had either Bernie or Hillary won, things would still be batshit crazy.

But I do remember when a certain tan-suited "president" decided to go on an apology tour and apologize to every nation he could about America being a land of opportunity.

Yeah, except there were no "apologies". The whole "Obama apology tour" thing was completely made up.

https://www.factcheck.org/2012...

https://www.politifact.com/tru...

https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23...

Cowardice?

And here I thought John Kerry was accused of, you know, coming back from Vietnam and declaring on national television (Meet the Press, April 18, 1971) that he participated in large-scale war crimes.

With the result that you can either believe that the young John Kerry was a dishonorable war criminal ("following orders" is not an actual defense to engaging in war crimes), or you can believe that the young John Kerry was a dishonorable slanderer of everybody he ever served with. But that either way that if presidential candidate John Kerry wanted to be judged on his actions in his youth, the correct judgment was that he shouldn't even feel free to show his face in public, much less hold high office.

The only available defense for John Kerry was a declaration that he disavowed what his younger self did, that he wasn't that man anymore, and so he shouldn't be held accountable for it. Which would be fine, except that in that case he would have to also disavow any credit for what that young man who he isn't anymore did in Vietnam, rather than constantly bringing up that younger self's service.

John Kerry started his political career by slandering those who served in Vietnam; that that thoroughly maculate origin rebounded on him when he made Vietnam service an issue in the campaign was utterly predictable and entirely just.

We could stop there, but there are lots of clearer examples than that one. During his campaign, Trump tweeted a phony racist infographic blaming blacks for a large number of homicides. These phony facts are designed to fool people who already have racist stereotypes, and Trump fell for it. Maybe he is not a racist, and he is just dumb? Trump constantly suggested that Barack Obama was a Muslim, intending that to be deragatory. He suggested that Obama's birth certificate stated he is a "muslim" which is of course not something that would be on a birth cerfiticate... so that just feels weird, like how he sees race and religion as something immutable about a person, and something they would want to hide. There's just a lot of stuff like that he does that creates the impression of a racist. You don't have to put on a while hood and march in the streets to be a racist.

That graphic is poorly explained but blacks are definitely disproportionately represented in murder statistics and the vast majority of it is black on black crime (mostly gang violence). And if you look at murder statistics where the perpetrator and victim are of different races black on white is much higher represented than white on black. So you can argue how correct the numbers are in this graphic but the general concept is factual. "Muslim" is not a race so I'm not going to respond to that. And last I checked race is immutable so I don't know what you're talking about there.

Racism can be subtle, and not even obvious to the individual. Let me give such an example. When Trump addressed the Jewish Coalition he said:

"I'm a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators," Trump said, drawing laughter before pivoting to how he would renegotiate the Iran deal. "Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them -- perhaps more than any other room I've ever spoken in."

Trump was playing on a Jewish stereotype, one that is often used in a derogatory way. Trump likes to present himself as a dealmaker, so maybe in context it was funny and appropriate. In isolation, we could laugh this off. But we see a lot of statements like this from Trump, and together they create the impression that his view of races and cultures is based on stereotypes and hearsay. He sounds like one of those racists who doesn't even realize they are a racist.

We could stop there, but there are lots of clearer examples than that one. During his campaign, Trump tweeted a phony racist infographic blaming blacks for a large number of homicides. These phony facts are designed to fool people who already have racist stereotypes, and Trump fell for it. Maybe he is not a racist, and he is just dumb? Trump constantly suggested that Barack Obama was a Muslim, intending that to be deragatory. He suggested that Obama's birth certificate stated he is a "muslim" which is of course not something that would be on a birth cerfiticate... so that just feels weird, like how he sees race and religion as something immutable about a person, and something they would want to hide. There's just a lot of stuff like that he does that creates the impression of a racist. You don't have to put on a while hood and march in the streets to be a racist.

The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.

The ACA also required some basic diagnostics to be done without cost to the consumer. That would be an expansion of service, not a shrinking.

Hospitals weren;t forced to close under the ACA, nor did it cause them to close. What did cause some to close was Republican lead states refusing to adopt the ACA, thereby shorting hospitals (and doctors) in the state those funds.... causing them to have to close. https://health.usnews.com/heal...

Hospitals in the 32 states that expanded Medicaid were about 84 percent less likely to close than hospitals in states that did not expand the government-funded insurance program for the poor or disabled, the study found.

Repealing the ACA will toss 20+ million people off of insurance, and put us right back to where we were with medical/insurance costs ACTUALLY growing fast like they did pre-ACA. I swear, it takes a complete fucking idiot to be as fucking wrong about things as dipshits like you. Tell me, did your mother have any children that weren't born braindead?

You are lying. She sent classified emails, including TOP SECRET ones from other agencies.

Sending classified materials over an classified connection was illegal, and she knew it (she signed off on her NDA, employment contract, and training that said so).

You are lying. She sent classified emails, including TOP SECRET ones from other agencies.

Sending classified materials over an classified connection was illegal, and she knew it (she signed off on her NDA, employment contract, and training that said so).

Would that be the same policy that Obama oversaw without a single sound from the SJW crowd who are now wailing like banshees? Obama created the policy but... but.. but... drumpf drumpf drumpf!!

Actually, nope, that is all Trump's baby.

Ok, you could technically blame Jeff Sessions.

Sorry, but we did check out your claims.

A 1m rise in oceans is going to have an enormous impact. With the 10 or so cm rise in the last decade we've already had entire island nations attempting to jump ship because their land is almost gone.

Hell, Louisiana is losing a football field an hour. It is ridiculous to think it won't cause severe issues in the next few decades which is a timeline that most of us still expect to be alive for.

You an millions of other internet dweebs believe this crap.

Get the facts, please.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/sen-feinsteins-husband-the-postal-service/
Her husband is part of the world's largest commercial real estate firm, which got a contract to sell off postal offices that were no longer needed. The contract seems to have gone to that firm because they are the biggest and most experienced, not because she is a senator. Nevertheless even the accidental collocation of political and financial power in the hands of a few families demonstrates what an oligarchy the US truly is.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/ice-caps-record-low-not-high/

Good job trying to go back to the bullshit Russia narrative. Not.

Uranium One, Hillary gave 20% of national uranium reserves to the Russians for personal profit, why isn't the media covering it? Who is the real traitor?

One of the problems with this world is we have people that contribute negative net value to the world such as this parent poster. fact check

Off hand there were like a crap ton of agencies going over that deal and the state department was just one of a crap ton. From what I recall, there is no evidence that the deal even reached her desk an no uranium is being shipped to Russia.

What russia did was use lies and just straight out propaganda to:
1. cause chaos to weaken us
2. hurt hillary, because she stood up to putin.
3. Help Trump, probably because they figured he will destroy america for them.

Mission Accomplished and Continuing.

Constant Vigilance is the price of freedom. Sadly we failed to pay and are now in bankruptcy.

During the last election, Steele was hired - first by Republicans, then Democrats - to research Trump.

Repeating this debunked claim makes the credibility of the rest of your post dubious. "None of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

How about 3 to start with, I'm betting there are others:

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

Note the code says nothing about intent.

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that

Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

Just guessing here, but I don't believe deleting any emails with BleachBit is allowed under this statute.

Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Veterans for a Strong America filed a lawsuit against the State Department for violations of the FOIA. They had filed the FOIA request because of Benghazi and specifically asked for any personal email accounts and her private server emails were not turned over as required.

Oh hell, why not add a 4th:

18 U.S. Code 1519 - Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Clinton's emails were subpoena'd by the FBI on March 4, 2015, Her campaign claimed they were deleted prior to the subpoena but the FBI investigation determined the emails were actually deleted sometime between March 25 -31, basically 3 weeks after the subpoena.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017...

I get it. You're a fucking idiot. You don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to learn about it. You are making stupid people embarrassed because they're now associated with you. It's been explained to you why you are wrong. If you continue to intentionally be wrong and lie about it, then you are no long simply wrong.. you're a lying sack of shit. That's probably an upgrade from what you normally are, but you should still strive to be better.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008...

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

https://www.thoughtco.com/hist...

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10...

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

âoeAlthough Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program â" contrary to the adâ(TM)s testimonial that Ford is âoestanding on their own.â

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2011...

I think you're looking at it incorrectly to see negative campaigning as a free speech issue.

Well I'm certainly not alone.

An Ohio law against false campaign ads struck down on free speech grounds:
https://scholar.google.com/sch...

A position paper on the topic:
https://object.cato.org/pubs/p...

An explanation of the free speech issues surrounding negative campaigning:
https://www.factcheck.org/2004...

Threatening to sue and killing the cat of a rape victim to shut her up are two different things. One of them is Trump, the other one is Clinton.

Actually, coercive lawsuits are often quite a problem, as is manufacturing unverified, and even provablyfalse claims about another.

It's ok, you're just a partisan Stalwart, and can't help yourself. You jumped on the bandwagon, and will never get off.

Good thing Hilldog only got to sell Uranium to Russia and not the entire country.

I'm astonished how many redneck Trump voters who believe this even after it's been debunked, even by republicans. It must be fun living in a fairy tale universe where saying something three times makes it true.

https://www.snopes.com/hillary...
https://www.factcheck.org/2015...

Meanwhile, in the real world, I'd be far more worried about a president who lies so much. I''m not saying that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a honest person, but Donald John Trump has taken outright fabrication to a whole new level.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

A) The Clintons and Soros control that fact check website you linked, you literally cited propaganda.

B) The Clintons received over 100m in their personal accounts for that sale, but sure, it was "unrelated."

C) You're a shill.

What the fuck are you smoking and how the hell did you get that the Clintons and Soros control factcheck.org? They have nothing to do with that website. You really should stop getting your news from Facebook or opinion sites that spread false information.

Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

A) The Clintons and Soros control that fact check website you linked, you literally cited propaganda.
B) The Clintons received over 100m in their personal accounts for that sale, but sure, it was "unrelated."
C) You're a shill.

She, like all of the other cabinet members, approved the sale of a Canadian company

Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

The Clinton campaign told the Times that generally these matters did not reach the secretary's level, so she may not have been involved at all. According to the Times, Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, represented the department on the committee. He told the Times: "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter."

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant by the con artist team.

Since when were any of you ever proud of being American?

I'm a proud American. There are a lot of things wrong with my country; there are plenty of stains on our history; and I'm concerned about our current vector. But we also claim a lot of accomplishments and advances and some of what we do helps the world. We have a lot of promise. America is Americans and some of my favorite people are Americans. America has Penn and Teller - What have you got?

What's the actual statistic on black on white crime and vice versa?

About 14.8% whites killed by blacks and 7.6% blacks killed by whites. Not remotely close to DJT's numbers. Whites are much more often killed by whites and ditto for blacks.