Slashdot Mirror

This is why you're confused: Donald Trump isn't a Republican. Not in the traditional sense, anyway.

True. He's more in the sense of how they've developed and pandered to an unruly base of the angry and raging people who just want an axe to grind.

And yet he's already had to soften his overblown rhetoric.

Why do you think everyone in the GOP was trying to tank his campaign. If the liberals are to be believed, they would fully agree with his "racist, hateful, xenophobic, sexist and dangerous" rhetoric. Not that he ever said anything that falls into those categories, mind you, but of course the Republican establishment tried everything in their power to sink him, he came right out and said he's going to knock down their house of cards!

Please don't lie to us with so obvious a statement. Denying that he ever said anything that falls into the category of racist, hateful, xenophobic, sexist, and dangerous rhetoric is beyond the pale of obliviousness. Say he didn't mean it, say he was pandering, but don't tell us flat-out lies. You are correct, that the Republican Establishment tried to sink him, but that's because the rhetoric he had would also touch their sacred cows, and they have their own interests. He is an outsider, so that is why.

Not because they disagreed with the approach.

Trump is more of your classic Democrat than anything resembling a traditional Republican or neocon. If you watch mainstream media, you wouldn't know it (as both sides had enough reasons to hate him, calling him outlandish names like above and taking every word he ever said out of context was fair game) but had he ran for office as a Democrat in the 1980s/1990s or 2000, he would have been universally revered by the left.

Nope, Trump would never have been able to successfully run for office as a Democratic in that time period (Now before that, it's another story, he certainly could have done it in the early part of the century, but even Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have done it openly) on his screed, and if you consider the Reagan-era rhetoric, from Reagan himself, everything he said about reform and fixing broken government, was from that side. Whereas they tarred Democrats with broken government. And they continued to fail, yet blamed Democrats. For everything. As usual. It's actually pretty traditional from Republicans, they've long claimed to be for Reform, but with rare exceptions like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and arguably Eisenhower (who flipped a coin really), they haven't actually delivered.

And taking every word of Trump's out of context? Every word? My my, what a standard that requires. You could at least limit yourself to phrasing like "often" or "frequently" or even just said they did it. No, no, many times his critics. did get the context. And it was equally damning. Fuck man, Trump was given a chance to walk back his use of the word, literally. He bulldozed ahead. The man can't even take an opportunity handed to him on a silver platter. The man COULD have shown that yes, he knew he was speaking figuratively, but he insisted, adamantly, otherwise. You may not like it, but I do judge him on his conversational abilities, and that is one aspect where he failed.

Sure, I suppose you could say that Trump, running for office, could have adopted a similarly inauthentic approach as a rabble-rousing demagogue, regardless of party, but he'd have to change his stripes a little bit. More Huey P. Long or the like. He's walking that back now. Those were just negotiating positions. His base ain't going to like that. They don't understand compromises.

Still lying like a rug though. Seriously, you're going to deport felons and criminals? Like Obama did? Huh. And yet he waved his hands in the sky as if he was going to DEPORT THEM ALL.

He won't. Amnesty will happen. And he'll likely blame it on having to compromise to get the votes.

Instead of you know, telling people the hard truth, that they want some crazy shit.

The main impetus of Trump supporters is:

A complicated situation that you haven't quite covered as comprehensively as you might have. Silentcoder has already called out some, on his prior replies, but let me add some more, since he seems to be more frustrated over it.

curb ILLEGAL immigration. Have a legal process and stick to it.

That might seem true, but it requires you to ignore all the other things that Trump said. And his supporters CHEERED. Build a WALL! Make MEXICO PAY for it. Deport them ALL! ESPECIALLY the MUSLIMS! This chant didn't come from nowhere.

Now then you add in how Trump brazenly claimed that Hillary, and Liberals in general, want completely open borders, and to invite terrorists into the country, then you have to wonder...how truly nuanced the conversation was.

I mean, if you want to tell me that Trump was over-the-top, hyperbolic, and a more moderate discussion should have been had, I'll respect that from you, but don't tell me that I didn't see what I saw.

Of course, what I'll tell you in that discussion is that we will end up with amnesty, much like Reagan, because the sheer cost of deportations is excessive. There is no way the numbers are going to go easy, even Romney couldn't bring himself to tell that big a lie, so he had to with self-deportation. But the fact is, Trump himself admitted Obama deported millions. He had to lie about nobody talking about it though. That was odd and perplexing. The only truth to that, is that he wasn't talking about it honestly.

Surely you can acknowledge, that Donald Trump has been intemperate, and prone to exaggeration, and that that might be his problem, as it clearly is his own choice, and even when handed the opportunity, he doubles down on his rhetoric, rather than walk it back?

drill for oil at home because
--- jobs here
-- stop sending money to Saudi Arabia which then funnels their money to expand their totalitarian ideology

Because they've watched too many episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies and Dallas, and think it'll cure what ails them.

In reality, there has been an Oil boom already.

Hasn't done that much. And Saudi Arabia has had their totalitarian ideology for decades. They've been receiving US support for just as long.

Trump won't change it. He might claim he will. But he won't. They'll still have oil. Even if we drilled ours right now, at a prodigious rate, regardless of the cost, they'd just have that oil, and we'd not even have potential reserves.

The better way to go, I submit, is to use up their oil first, and maintain ours at some level of stability. This would be a more calculated and considered response, I think. It might not be immediately gratifying, but long-term, it has advantages.

-- (conversely they are not opposed to renewable energy)

This is the same group that had the vapors over Solyndra, blaming Obama, claiming it was crony capitalism, and even to the extent that they denied that the company even made solar panels? That's right, they were so upset, they didn't realize the factory was, in fact, built. That the real problem was CHINESE dumping of their solar panels for cheap.

This is also the same group that freaked out over the incandescent bulb ban, the same group that is so upset over wind that they pretend to be upset over bird deaths. Really, I recall all the people declaring that they'd buy a lifetime supply of bulbs, and that the mercury, the mercury in CFL's was so terrible, and I just saw how Trump wigged out of LED bulbs,

Or have you forgotten what I said in my original post?

No, what I remembered (and examined) was the context:

But Jesus fucking Christ, all of this dumb shit about racism and sexism... all of these red herrings that NO ONE on the fence gave a crap about after the man gave you a mountain of potent ammunition to use against him. Scream and scream and scream hysterically at us if we don't agree he's "orange Hitler". No, no he's not Hitler or a racist, obviously fucking not. He's an airhead who barely pays attention to what he's even saying, a sycophant, a man who was a registered Democrat not that long ago, someone who was able to broach a few important topics that no one else was willing to broach, even if he make a complete mess if it every time he tried to talk sense. Just broaching the topic was enough.

That's the full section. Why do I bring that up? Well, to show how I find your criticism to be very tepid. You start off with a complaint about how he's not "orange Hitler" and that is the left's problem for screaming hysterically. Heck, you deny he's a racist. He's sure said a lot of racist things for somebody who isn't. Sure, I don't know him personally, and he could be totally fake, or just totally oblivious, but I can't say my estimation is entirely incorrect. A little admission that he's prone to appearing racist, maybe that'd be enough of a concession that you'd be showing some examination. Otherwise, no, from my perspective, you're not even coming close to a true picture of the man, in fact, you end with a compliment towards him. A faint, even backhanded one, but still, you are satisfied that he broached the topic. I already said to you why I find that insufficient, though you didn't reply on that matter.

However, I just had cause today, to remember why I consider Trump a liar. He claimed that we didn't talk about it. Nope, I remember he talked about immigration, as if we were overrun and much beset. That you may dismiss as an airhead, but I find it to be far more sinister.

I don't know, maybe to you that seems more cutting than it does to me. I already said I could accept a statement that you can see how I see things differently.

But that may be digressing, because if you don't remember what I asked you for, it was this:

Yeah, about that, let me know when you're going to stand up to the rightwingers needing to figure some things out.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't noticed that from you.

But what I also offered was this:

The better route would have been to make an explicit remark where you firmly rebuke Trump.

Pop out a good solid one on Trump.

If I was unclear to you, I apologize for not making it more explicit. What I've seen you say is not simply enough. I'm looking for more substance than you've offered so far. Instead of lukewarm, give me hot, even if you can't manage boiling. Of course, if your estimation of your post was that it was sufficient to meet my standards, well, unfortunately, I can't give your above statement that high a mark. If I were to bench it on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the most vicious remark I expect you to make, well, I can't rate you very high. I might give you as high as a 4, if I solely rated it on its own. If I were to consider you in the light of an attempt to be full of decorum, I might possibly bump you up a bit. But I can't, as I have to weigh Trump's character and own tendencies, as well as the context of your remark, as well as what I have observed your own temperament, you're lucky to be pushing 2.

Perhaps you could give me your own estimation? How strong do you think you were

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.

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.

Are we supposed to trust Tesla's own results of testing Tesla's product? Seriously? 98% is entirely too low in such circumstances, Saddam Hussein got 100%...

Medicare administrators too, for example, would've liked us to think, the program loses only about 1% of its budget to "fraud, waste, and abuse" (better to claim the government being more efficient than KKKorporations) while the independent audits show figures of at least 6% (or even 10%).

I could never have voted for Hillary, if not for any other reason than because of her long standing opposition to gay marriage and her subsequent lies about it

Rich. . . so you voted for the ticket with MIKE PENCE!? and Donald Trump, who has been a consistent opponent of marriage equality. Face it, you were also duped. This IS Brexit all over. . . where AFTER the election voters are like, "what is the EU?".

It will be interesting to see how long people like you will defend him. Trump will eventually unite America. . . with his universal disappointment. . .

The 90% for payroll and benefits is directly from their tax forms.

WRONG. What you appear to have no time for is factual information.

This is foolishly untrue and not posted with a source. Here's the result of googling "Clinton foundation spending". It's based on the fact that ~20% of the funds of the Clinton foundation go to direct grants, 60-70% are for funded projects like building warehouses for farmers, job training, purchasing medication etc. and 10-20% is overhead. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

...a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact, this claim does not hold true.

Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:

On the low end, the Clintons reported assets of $11.3 million. On the high end, they might have as much as $52.7 million. The couple listed no liabilities.

How is it that Bill Clinton 'actually' accepted HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from foreign interests, yet he only has assets totaling as much as $53 million?

This is a classic example of the disruption that Trump has brought to the political process.

Unrestrained fiction presented as facts to smear opponents requires an update or replacement to the term "truthiness."

...a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact, this claim does not hold true.

Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:

On the low end, the Clintons reported assets of $11.3 million. On the high end, they might have as much as $52.7 million. The couple listed no liabilities.

How is it that Bill Clinton 'actually' accepted HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from foreign interests, yet he only has assets totaling as much as $53 million?

This is a classic example of the disruption that Trump has brought to the political process.

Unrestrained fiction presented as facts to smear opponents requires an update or replacement to the term "truthiness."

Might want to double-check what actually occurred according to reviews of the video, rather than accept some reporter's interpretation of it.

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

"After going through all of his comments from this past weekend, it seems that Trump definitely wants a database of Syrian refugees, and he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a database for all Muslims -- though he isn’t actively calling for the latter. And we’ll warn you now that many of Trump’s comments strike us as contradictory or confusing."

The last line pretty much sums up Trump's "stances" - contradictory or confusing.

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

On the contrary, because California would no longer need to financially support the red states, the lower taxes will encourage people to live in California and that means higher property values.

Their Reddit post is a link to a Wikileaks email that's hard to read due to being HTML. So no, it really comes from Wikileaks, not Redddit.

Here, I'll copy paste the text from the HTML version for you so that you can read it a little more easily -

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, geburgan@gmail.com, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, ryban1001@gmail.com
Date: 2016-04-24 12:36
Subject: Re: Nice job

Thanks. Just for the whole group going forward, while we shouldn't produce a twenty page briefing, it is helpful to include the hot button topics I may or will likely be asked, like HRC's emails, Benghazi, etc. so I can have them top of mind to draw from. This is especially true with any FOX interview. It helps me make my responses stronger. As I said to Luis, there's a lot in my head, the briefings help bring things about which I'm already familiar, to the top of my head!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill
Cc: Kate Houghton
Subject: RE: Nice job

Oh, and as I said on the phone, great job pivoting to the broader contrast and squeezing in the economy, jobs and 73 months of growth.

From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:59 AM
To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill
Cc: Kate Houghton
Subject: Nice job

I thought you did well and stayed calm and poised despite Wallace's hammering. Just a few thoughts:

Going forward I think you can start with the "I've cautioned on tone..." and then give the explanation about the context of the broader race and how substantive it has been.
On the email server. Clinton isn't the subject of the investigation, so that should be something we say up front. It's also not fair to compare her to past Secretaries of State who frankly didn't live in the digital age in the same way... The Bush Administration's use of email generally was lower, so was the Clinton Administration, because the Internet is actually a relatively new thing.
And the only missed opportunity I saw was reminding Wallace that this email server came about as a result of what the Republican leadership in the House acknowledged was a politically driven investigation meant to lower her poll numbers. The Benghazi committee cost taxpayers millions for Republicans to try to affect this presidential election.

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

Here's what's wrong with Jeb Bush saying Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 11:04 p.m.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she might find herself preoccupied with an FBI investigation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said at a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina.

"Sheâ(TM)s under investigation with the FBI right now," Bush said Jan. 14. "If she gets elected, her first 100 days â" instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the court house."

Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.

Here are the facts.

In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the governmentâ(TM)s possession. In this case, the location was Clintonâ(TM)s privat

The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose.

Because they called Trump on his lies more often than they called Clinton on hers? That's just because he told far more of them:

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

[The media] lost both all credibility and the election, and so no longer serve any useful purpose to anyone.

The media was not running in this election, but anyway -- who would you suggest take their place? Oh, wait...

There doesn't seem to be anyone any more who will put fact-checking before politics.

However imperfect the media may be sometimes, it's vital to have it around if democracy is to function.

The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose.

Because they called Trump on his lies more often than they called Clinton on hers? That's just because he told far more of them:

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

[The media] lost both all credibility and the election, and so no longer serve any useful purpose to anyone.

The media was not running in this election, but anyway -- who would you suggest take their place? Oh, wait...

There doesn't seem to be anyone any more who will put fact-checking before politics.

However imperfect the media may be sometimes, it's vital to have it around if democracy is to function.

I'm sure there will be a Trumpmeter like this, but I'm also sure that since a brietbart news site told them politifact was biased and run by Jews, they will ignore it.

"Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," Clinton said July 2, 2016. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.", on her private server.

as this.

Attacks on US embassies are surprisingly common, as are deaths resulting from them.

And you have actual citations for these claims

Of course not, because they are nonsense. These bullet points are copied verbatim from a viral image that has been circulating among alt-right kooks, including my idiot brother-in-law. All of these claims have been thoroughly debunked.

But it was all Trump's fault, because he invited the Russians to hack it. (After it was already hacked.)

Putin is the kind of guy, who would've never done anything so unwholesome without an invitation, of course.

Governments in Europe aren't as predatory against their own people as the US government is. I imagine you don't think your government hates you and wants to make your life worse. If you did, you would be a lot more defensive.

People in the US know our government hates us, because people in government say so all the time.

Putin wants Trump to be president.

Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine.
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?

http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan wanted to explore racial bias in the job market.

They responded to help-wanted ads for a variety of positions in the fields of sales, administrative support, clerical services and customer services posted in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune with fake resumes. The researchers plugged in made-up names on the resumes that are associated with African-Americans (they used Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones as examples) or whites (Emily Walsh and Greg Baker) based on naming data for babies born between 1974-79 in Massachusetts. The name on each resume was randomly assigned, so the same resume in some cases had a black name and in others had a white name.

Then they counted the callbacks.

The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.

After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.

In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.

His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close.

If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.

(but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.)

That you don't see the nuance in the mainstream BLM party line doesn't mean it's not there.

I mean the Bundys who took over a federal facility, making very serious threats of a shootout in the process, were just found "Not Guilty". Do you really think a group of black men would have found a similar result? Can you understand the complaint now?

He's never made it about race.

Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.

And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home.

If you don't acknowledge the role that race plays you don't understand the problem.

I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)

It's not clear at all. Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn't white. Do you really think Trump would claim a white judge wasn't qualified to judge a Black Panther?

As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over.

Yet crimes rates among illegal immigrants are lower.

He also said "Mexico is sending", like there was a conspiracy to dump undesirables into the US. The weird foreign country secretly conspiring against you is a racist concept.

Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble.

You know you caused this trouble? It's a short path from the invasion of Iraq to the refugee crisis in Syria. If any country has a moral obligation to take in refugee's it's the US.

That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees",

So because a few aren't being faced with the choice of living under a brutal dictator or horrific theocrats the whole lot of them are just being selfish.

because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.)

So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!

Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (including politically) and these background screening processes are not impressive to anyone who has been paying attention.

Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

"But Europe is taking an orders of magnitude more!" is not an argument that sways me much--most of th

This happens practically every major election:

http://www.politifact.com/pund...

I recall during the 2004 elections it was done pretty openly by Democrats, under a program called "smokes for votes".

> Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to
> the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement"

Historically, presidents implement about 70% of their campaign promises. A significant reason for that is simply getting those promises on the record makes holding them accountable to their promises much easier. Obama even got somewhat of a pass because nobody in the party wanted to give the republicans any help in besmirching the first black president and he still is about 70%.

But given Clinton's low popularity ratings, she ain't getting a pass on anything. Sanders and Warren are going to hold her feet to the fire from day one. In fact, the email dumps have revealed how they've been putting the screws to her for the past year in order to get their endorsements. So this lying liar theory, that's unlikely to be true any more than it has been for any other politician.

These sort of comments might be funny but they aren't at all accurate. If one looks for example at Hillary's Politifact rating she has a larger fraction of true or mostly true statements than most major politicians (and way, way more than Donald Trump who has many more totally false or Pants on Fire statements than most politicians). See http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/. Politifact does have some issues; they decide what statements to rate, and there's some amount of subjectivity in the ratings, such as the difference between true and mostly true, or between false and mostly false, and some of their rulings are definitely arguable (such as their tendency to rate rumors as false simply if they are very unlikely and have zero evidence) but even if you move half of her statements from each category one category down, she still well within the normal range for politicians.

Start here, and you'll see plenty of source links.

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

Wait, wait, you claim there are no complaints about Ann Coulter's "facts" or "opinions" and that it is all about her looks? Now who is letting their biases control what they see?

You might be able to sneeringly condemn the people who mock Ann Coulter for her appearance, but to pretend that there is only that, and not significant criticism that directly challenges her deceits and misrepresentations, well, it cuts the legitimacy of your own position.

You can be sanctimonious about your biased and inaccurate sources, but please don't blatantly present falsehoods that are easily exposed.

No, she didn't. But don't let facts stand in your way.

Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site. Compare statements made by Ron Paul (R) and Jim Webb (D). They are saying almost exactly the same thing. Paul's statement gets "half-true", but Webb's gets "mostly-true".

If you think politifact is wrong about the clinton foundation, you can fact-check it yourself motherfucker, and citing an internet meme, faux news or infowars isn't a source, try charity watch.

Now go to hell you delusional, lying asshole.

Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site. Compare statements made by Ron Paul (R) and Jim Webb (D). They are saying almost exactly the same thing. Paul's statement gets "half-true", but Webb's gets "mostly-true".

If you think politifact is wrong about the clinton foundation, you can fact-check it yourself motherfucker, and citing an internet meme, faux news or infowars isn't a source, try charity watch.

Now go to hell you delusional, lying asshole.

Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site. Compare statements made by Ron Paul (R) and Jim Webb (D). They are saying almost exactly the same thing. Paul's statement gets "half-true", but Webb's gets "mostly-true".

Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site. Compare statements made by Ron Paul (R) and Jim Webb (D). They are saying almost exactly the same thing. Paul's statement gets "half-true", but Webb's gets "mostly-true".

You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead

That's based on a misreading of the Foundation's tax forms.

TL;DR: The foundation does provide only a small percentage of its donations in the form of grants. But that does not mean that the rest goes to overhead. The overwhelming majority of its funds are spent directly on programs and services that benefit the intended recipients. Only 10 to 20 percent is spent on fundraising and other overhead. That puts it on par with the best charities out there.

I would normally tell you to read transcripts and watch tapes. Since time is rather short and there is much to learn, let me point you to a Philosophy show who also dabbles in the journalism so lacking in media today.

Just a word of caution: Since the media is so biased it may seem shocking to the system to get a different view. Taking the red pill as it were. Always, check sources if you are in doubt. Stefan provides them all, but may be found easier on his web site compared to Youtube.

Oh Jesus what a load of horse shit. That channel is clearly Pro-Trump/Anti-Hillary so how would you expect to get impartial material from that?
I could only sit through the first few minutes, but nothing was presented as fact, it was all pro-Trump rhetoric. The easiest measure of bias is see whether the content contains both pro and cons message from both sides. If it's 100% pro Hillary it can't be trusted, and if it 100% pro Trump it can't be trusted.
Here's an example of what you should be looking for: http://www.politifact.com/
Real, measurable and impartial facts of both sides, not just one side's opinion.

Hmm, I'll ignore your error over who appointed Sonia Sotomayor, but Elena Kagan has darker skin than Merrick Garland? Saying that, I know your complaint isn't valid. Seriously, bad enough you ignore their real qualifications as jurists, but don't make shit up like that. It just makes you look bad.

It's like all of the complaints and excuses that Republicans have had for refusing to conduct a hearing on Merrick Garland. McCain already admitted it. They just don't want to let any nominee of a Democrat. And they facetiously blame it on who? Biden. Can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Stop making shit up and face the real problems.

Also, no suggesting that Obama nominate himself isn't because of his skin color. Shame on you for thinking that.

you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.

Just for the hell of it though, this is the kind of crap that annoys us: Bernie Sanders' statistic on black, Hispanic unemployment has merit, but may be out of date: Mostly True

Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent: Mostly False

Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.

Barack Obama issued a decree "demanding that every public school now allow grown men and boys into the little girls’ bathroom." False. And why is it false? Because Transgender boys aren't girls. Fuck you politifact.

They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"

WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"

O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.

Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?

you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.

Just for the hell of it though, this is the kind of crap that annoys us: Bernie Sanders' statistic on black, Hispanic unemployment has merit, but may be out of date: Mostly True

Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent: Mostly False

Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.

Barack Obama issued a decree "demanding that every public school now allow grown men and boys into the little girls’ bathroom." False. And why is it false? Because Transgender boys aren't girls. Fuck you politifact.

They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"

WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"

O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.

Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?

you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.

Just for the hell of it though, this is the kind of crap that annoys us: Bernie Sanders' statistic on black, Hispanic unemployment has merit, but may be out of date: Mostly True

Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent: Mostly False

Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.

Barack Obama issued a decree "demanding that every public school now allow grown men and boys into the little girls’ bathroom." False. And why is it false? Because Transgender boys aren't girls. Fuck you politifact.

They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"

WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"

O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.

Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?

you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.

Just for the hell of it though, this is the kind of crap that annoys us: Bernie Sanders' statistic on black, Hispanic unemployment has merit, but may be out of date: Mostly True

Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent: Mostly False

Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.

Barack Obama issued a decree "demanding that every public school now allow grown men and boys into the little girls’ bathroom." False. And why is it false? Because Transgender boys aren't girls. Fuck you politifact.

They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.

While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"

WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"

O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.

Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?

US workers are behind only Norway and Luxemburg in terms of productivity so your observation doesnt seem to line up with the big picture. We are getting more work done.

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

I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom

I'd rather Trump wins, than Clinton, who:

1. ran State, when the Administration ended all "Georgian" sanctions against Russia, thus inviting Putin into Ukraine as predicted
2. received, along with her husband, countless bribes (that is, "speech fees") from Putin-controlled entities — and gave amply in return
3. routed billions-worth of investment into Russia's high-tech and -technology firms, some of them, obviously, with military connections
4. was part of the Administration, that still would not give Ukraine lethal weapons (such as anti-tank missiles they desperately need) to counter the threat of Russia's armor
5. Continues to employ John Podesta, who received millions from Putin too — and, unlike Manafort, Podesta is not simply a cold professional campaigner one day in Peru, tomorrow in Israel, and so on, he is sincerely behind Clinton and Democrats.

Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.

I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom

I'd rather Trump wins, than Clinton, who:

1. ran State, when the Administration ended all "Georgian" sanctions against Russia, thus inviting Putin into Ukraine as predicted
2. received, along with her husband, countless bribes (that is, "speech fees") from Putin-controlled entities — and gave amply in return
3. routed billions-worth of investment into Russia's high-tech and -technology firms, some of them, obviously, with military connections
4. was part of the Administration, that still would not give Ukraine lethal weapons (such as anti-tank missiles they desperately need) to counter the threat of Russia's armor
5. Continues to employ John Podesta, who received millions from Putin too — and, unlike Manafort, Podesta is not simply a cold professional campaigner one day in Peru, tomorrow in Israel, and so on, he is sincerely behind Clinton and Democrats.

Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.

Actually, Obama's case is more interesting. In 1996, running for Illinois state Senate, he was pro gay marriage. Later, when he was running for US Senate and the presidency, he was anti. In 2012 he switched back to pro.

source

We get it, different lies to different people.

Trump is lying way more than Hillary. Comparison

But how do we find out what Queen Hillary thinks if she's always just telling people the lies they want to hear?

If your going solely on what a politician tells you, well that would be unwise. I suggest reviewing her record as First Lady, as Senator, as Secretary of State, and then finally look at what she said in the primary and the general election. Of course, with Trump we know we can discount everything he says, since he has been shown to be a liar based on the previous link.

Most likely few things will change if she becomes president, though she might be a little more hawkish, but less so that say Donald Trump or what other republicans would be.

The media will hold her to account? Hahaha

There are reputable sources out there. I suggest selecting a non alt right source. Heck, just reading the fact checking sites is a start. Watching cspan probably wouldn't hurt either.

If we dig down deep enough shouldn't there be at least some principles to find in her dark soul?

Your comparing Hillary with the guy that deliberately brought those women to a debate for the pure and simple purpose of trying to rattle her, and to hell with anything approaching common f*ing decency?

Your comparing Hillary with the guy who began his career in politics by trying to de-legitimize the first black president. Step two was calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists. Step three was asking for a ban on an entire religion, and now we have the step where he is doing his best to de-legitimize the first woman president with flat out lies about rigging, before it even happens, and to hell with the consequences. Riots are possible.

And you have the nerve to talk about Hillary's soul. Ridiculous.

“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.

Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?

That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.

I'm amazed more people don't see through it all.