Slashdot Mirror

“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 bloggger didn't remember well enough. He (and you) are missing intermediate posts about it that are linked in the Year of the Lie of 2013 post -- so there's no excuse for him missing it.

From politifact in 2009: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Now, close to a year later, we finally have detailed bills to examine. They closely mirror what Obama promised during the campaign.

But the plans also introduce new ways of regulating health insurance companies that will surely change the current health care system. That could prompt employers to change their health plans, and we find Obama's statement less clear-cut now than it once seemed.(emphasis mine)

So apparently Don Surber was a lot less honest than Politifact. That's why I never believe right-wing online nuts "fact-checking" because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally omit something important or misinterpret what is said.

Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."

Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.

Before and after. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.

Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."

Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.

Before and after. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.

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

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

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

If your hero has a chance he is going to fuck you over big time.

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. Trump isn't my first choice for president, and I think he's not very competent, but his actual political program is a fairly moderate conservative program. Depending on how close it looks where I live, I may hold my nose and vote for Trump anyway because I don't want Hillary.

Stop pretending to be so stupid and open your eyes.

Hillary has already "fucked me over". But that's not why I'm not voting for her. Neither am I not voting for her because I think she is cold, opportunistic, corrupt, duplicitous, and utterly unlikable.

The reason I don't want Hillary to become president is simply because I think Hillary's political program is awful. I agree more with Sanders and JIll Stein than with Hillary Clinton.

Come on now, everyone saw plain as day that a CNN employee gave Trump a setup question in the 2nd debate. These people were already waiting in the wings to promote the narrative. The most recent allegation has already been proven to lack merit because the person was emailing Trump and praising Trump just prior to making allegations. The oldest case lacks merit due to the age of the case and the unlikely event that in the late 70s men could freely grope women on an airplane and nobody would say anything. The alleged abuse of the former Ms Universe also turned out it lacked merit and the person making the allegations fabricated at least portions of her so called testimony. When the testimony is hear-say it is fair that we scrutinize the allegations before throwing mud.

Lets not forget that the left in general has a long history of using bogus allegations for the purpose of winning elections. Look at the people who ran against Obama for example, where he gained a Senate seat by making up allegations weeks before elections. How about the false allegations used against Romney in his race for President. They also have a history of making allegations against their side vanish from headlines until too late. Again, Clinton is the easy target with the media claiming all of the sexual misconduct and perjury charges against him were fabricated by sluts and evil right wingers. And hey, don't all men get blowjobs from interns and use their private parts as cigar holders? You prudes that believe otherwise are nothing but right wing Religious nutjobs. Unless its the Conservative/Republican they wish to accuse.

Once again, we have real facts to back allegations of not just Clinton's wrong doing but high ranking officials in several departments including the State Department, Justice Department, and the head of the FBI. Those are not hear-say allegations, they are based on evidence. Sure, the evidence would not be admissible on its own but it should have already resulted in Grand Jury hearings, suspensions, and confiscation of data from those same parties which could be used as evidence.

If you are not outraged at the current system, you are a fool.

And that you misunderstood "implication" thinking it is related to if-then logic, so you are confused with something being "half true".
Instead of "implication" being used commonly as a synonym for "suggesting" - i.e. "insinuating", i.e. "claiming".

And let us also assume that you haven't actually read through the article you quoted.
Cause it actually has a video of Trump "making that claim".

The "half true" in fabula lies on the back of Trump getting the timeline correct.
That's the "true" part of the "half true". He got his A before his B. He got the order of the dates correctly.
Which IS somewhat of a feat for a man who can't get the date of election right.
But ignore him getting the timeline right and look at the claim as meaning "BECAUSE you got a subpoena you have deleted 33,000 emails." (which is what he is claiming) - and it's nothing but unproven bullshit.
Except it's not just any unproven bullshit - it's "after being investigated by the FBI - who found nothing" unproven bullshit.

Politifact didn't infer anything.
Nor did they set up a straw man argument as you seem to be implying there. As in, suggesting.
They are just too polite and too nitpicky to simply label it "bullshit". Which is what it is.
Cause he isn't talking about the order of the dates... however amazing it might be that Trump got that part right.

Well... if we assume that he isn't a complete imbecile who is simply thrilled about figuring out the order of the dates of the events, and that he is thus not talking about dates but about some sort of guilt regarding those events.
I mean... that could be true as well... but it's doubtful.
He's obviously at the very least a moron.

While you would probably consider politifact to be biased (or think that not supporting same-sex marriage isn't the same as "anti-gay"), how about this: http://www.politifact.com/new-...

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

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

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

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

By what measure have the last 8 years sucked? Just curious, but please be objective and stick to the facts.

Stock market did well: http://www.macrotrends.net/135...
GDP slowly rising: http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Unemployment steadily decreasing http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...
Steadily decreasing gas prices: https://blog.gasbuddy.com/Reta...
Believe it or not, decreasing crime rate: http://www.nationalreview.com/...
No major new gun control laws or other major trampling of the constitution
Many additional safeguards on disadvantaged segments of the population
And finally a reasonable record of kept campaign promises: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

To be sure not a perfect record; for example:
Middle East and Syria in particular - probably would have happened regardless
Relations with Russia and China - hard to say what could have been done differently
"Affordable" Health Care Act - although we couldn't live with what we had we should have done better. At least children are covered now...
Education - we owe our children and future more
Care for the environment - oils spills and global warming
Race relations and policing - Black Lives Matter

If you want to pin a failure on Barack Obama, blame him for not finding a way to reach out to congress - let's face it that situation is f'd up. Barack can't get an A on his report card because he failed that test. While maybe the most powerful person around, the president of the US certainly is not omnipotent. I challenge anybody to say they could have really done better.

Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier.

Debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...

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

You're worldview is built on a lie. You might want to do something about that.

Of the two main candidates in this race, one of them has a much more difficult relationship with the truth.

So, it would hardly be surprising if Google's fact-check alarm went off more frequently with that candidate.

I think everyone is a little confused about how the justice system works. As it stands, a secret committee can sign a secret death warrant to be executed by the president against American citizens abroad, and the US attorney general Eric Holder wouldn't rule out the possibility of said extra-judiciary process being used on Americans on US soil. So I don't blame Trump for thinking that maybe the POTUS can rule like an emperor from time to time.

Trump may understand however that the justice system is compromised, as demonstrated by Email-gate where Clinton has already promised to keep Lynch as the attorney general. This is why Trump is choosing senator Trey Gowdy to be attorney general, and if you've actually watched the house judiciary meetings you'd see that if anyone is capable of cutting through the bullshit to get to answers when in an actual position of power, it would be Gowdy. It could be the one good thing that comes from a Trump presidency.

a) Sorry, let me clarify, THE FBI found that 110 emails contained classified information, including 8 that contained top secret, the highest level of classification, and two emails that were marked classified at the time they were sent. (This does not include several thousand emails which have now been marked classified but were not strictly marked classified at the time. This is the point of secured email systems for the Secretary of State; much of what they create may be classified, though not so marked at the time, and you want to protect that shit from spies.) You might want to pay attention to the news and maybe watch the FBI reporting on this to congress.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?...

check out 33:36 for some very straight facts on the case, extracted by a former federal prosecutor.

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

b) She was sent a subpoena by congress for all her private server emails which she used for work at the state department, after she failed to turn them over 2 years earlier when she left the state department, as required by the federal records act, which is supposed to take all of her correspondence and archive it for FOIA requests. The federal government has a 100% retention requirement for high ranking government officials. She worked for us and we have a right to review her non-classified work at any time. The 60 day retention policy is pure bullshit.

c) Legislators are accountable every 4 or 6 years (house and senate respectively). DO YOU HAVE A CLUE HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS?? The out of power party is always obstructionist to a degree. If you have a president who is a leader who will compromise to get things done, that is how the government works. Everyone gets something they want, but no one gets everything that they want. Obama has not figured this out in 8 years, so he gets out his pen and his phone. It didn't matter for Obama's first 2 years in office as he had majorities in both the house and senate. He rubbed it in everyone's face "elections have consequences" and used his majorities to pass the ACA, a massive overreach of government power (the penalty for not buying a product from a private company wasn't a tax until the supreme court, then it sure as hell was).

d) We have anything but the two best candidates. Hillary is a liar and a law breaker, and literally every other candidate in the republican primary was better than Trump, he mainly got nominated by non-republicans (i.e. Democrats) seeking to fuck up the process:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/...

So no, the two major parties to not have the best candidates this time around, and if you think so you need to stop smoking whatever you have been smoking.

Lied? I think you mean, at best, was mistaken.

Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.

Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.

I am reluctant to accept something from a KGB archive as fact.

Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...

KGB might have still borne some grudges against the Kennedy family.

American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).

Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?

Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...

Hillary was also proven guilty by admitting she destroyed emails after receiving a subpoena from Congress which is at a minimum Obstruction of Justice. She is guilty of perjury again by looking at her own testimony where either she lied to Congress or the FBI Director did. Within the statues of the law, she is guilty of mishandling classified information. Proven by the FBI directory who for her case, and only her case, put a stipulation of mens rea on filing charges. NO other cases in the US have used intent as a stipulation for assessing guilt, NONE. Intent has not even been used in the sentencing of cases against US Military mishandling classified materials. Some of which were completely accidental (US Marine who found a paper in his laundry and turned it in only to be handed over to the courts).

Can we stick to facts please...

Hillary did not say that she destroyed email after receiving a subpoena from Congress. The guy managing her email destroyed the emails after being asked to remove personal emails months earlier but he slacked off and didn't delete them until later. The FBI found that there was no collusion. Even the Republicans in Congress couldn't find any evidence. Anything beyond that is just political grandstanding... unless you have hidden evidence to add to the discussion...

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

As for intent, historical court cases does not back up your assertion that intent was not a requirement for a successful conviction. Here is a good article explaining the previous cases:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/...

Hillary was also proven guilty by admitting she destroyed emails after receiving a subpoena from Congress which is at a minimum Obstruction of Justice. She is guilty of perjury again by looking at her own testimony where either she lied to Congress or the FBI Director did. Within the statues of the law, she is guilty of mishandling classified information. Proven by the FBI directory who for her case, and only her case, put a stipulation of mens rea on filing charges. NO other cases in the US have used intent as a stipulation for assessing guilt, NONE. Intent has not even been used in the sentencing of cases against US Military mishandling classified materials. Some of which were completely accidental (US Marine who found a paper in his laundry and turned it in only to be handed over to the courts).

Can we stick to facts please...

Hillary did not say that she destroyed email after receiving a subpoena from Congress. The guy managing her email destroyed the emails after being asked to remove personal emails months earlier but he slacked off and didn't delete them until later. The FBI found that there was no collusion. Even the Republicans in Congress couldn't find any evidence. Anything beyond that is just political grandstanding... unless you have hidden evidence to add to the discussion...

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

As for intent, historical court cases does not back up your assertion that intent was not a requirement for a successful conviction. Here is a good article explaining the previous cases:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [taxpolicycenter.org] http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

One look at the authors of these "analysis" pieces should tell you everything you need to know about them.

Politifact has been shown time and time again to be less than factual about so many things.

You could, of course, make your own judgement about both plans.

"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."

His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.

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

Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.

So, you are now conflating two wildly different things. We were discussing the emails. In fact, you explicitly brought up the emails. You are now bringing up issues with caucuses. So let's discuss that issue (which we should keep in mind has nothing to do with DNC emails). Caucuses are very complicated (and frankly terrible as a system) and multiple votes are a standard aspect. For example, in Maine (where I caucused) there were multiple stages between the first count and the actual vote. This is a standard thing, and people who leave early are a standard factor. The other issue that came up was Sanders people failing to go to state conventions even after the local conventions were done, and in fact, in at least some occasions similar issues took place in reverse where they benefited Sanders. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/. Caucus obnoxious rules is not voter fraud, and none of this is relevant to the emails being discussed.

Even better: G.W. Bush didn't dare comming to Switzerland because he could face arrest for war crimes in a war the Swiss never participated.

Not quite true.

It seems like every "independent" thing I've read indicates that it is really impossible to tell what the Clinton foundation is actually doing.

I don't think the characterization that the Clinton foundation "the Clinton Foundation is independently reviewed to be above reproach" is accurate. I haven't seen any evidence that conclusively proves any nefarious activities, but that doesn't make them "above reproach".

According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, which gave the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating, the Clinton Foundation spends only 12% of the money it raises on overhead. Politifact has a good rundown on this: http://www.politifact.com/trut... . Do some research before making wild claims, don't just go with wisdom from the blogosphere.

If it's not true, there wold be no statistical difference between the average rating of incentivized and regular reviews.

False.

Some incentivized reviews are biased. Maybe, even many of them. But biased does not mean fake either and, as I said, not all of them are even necessarily biased.

Summary says these incentivized reviews were "overwhelmingly biased in favor of the product"

Yes, and this may very well be true. But it does not mean, they are fake — the semantic differences are important.

significant deviation between the two averages. So yeah the incentivized reviews are for all intents and purposes fake.

Statistically, Blacks commit disproportionately more violent crimes, than Whites. Are you going to claim, Blacks "are for all intents and purposes" criminal?

Let's see. Hillary has repeatedly admitted that using a personal email server was a mistake. She has also admitted that the Iraq vote was also a mistake. She has admitted to numerous mistakes, meanwhile Donald's win-at-all-costs-I'm-perfect-trust-me has never admitted a mistake. Hillary has also admitted that some of the policies that were done when Bill was president did not work out so well. I see this as someone learning from their mistakes. Most people will learn from mistakes and move on.

Donald doesn't make mistakes. Failures are always somebody else's fault because he's perfect and such a great businessman that he loses almost a billion dollars while the economy is doing well. It's not his fault that he was sued by the justice department (under the Nixon administration, no less) for housing discrimination. It's not his fault that Trump Airlines went bankrupt, after all, turning a bottom feeder airline into a luxury airliner is sure to succeed, right? It's not his fault that his foundation funded his businesses with other people's donated money even though it was illegal for his foundation to collect money? It's not his fault that his casinos went bankrupt or that his father illegally bailed him out by buying chips. It's not his fault that he's so misogynous towards women, especially ones he doesn't think are pretty. It's also not his fault that most stuff he says is untrue. After all, Hillary is a liar compared to Trump.

If anyone feels they're entitled, it's the Donald because he's just perfect and can never do no wrong and is such an awesome businessman, after all, he always says, "Trust me."

Let's see. Hillary has repeatedly admitted that using a personal email server was a mistake. She has also admitted that the Iraq vote was also a mistake. She has admitted to numerous mistakes, meanwhile Donald's win-at-all-costs-I'm-perfect-trust-me has never admitted a mistake. Hillary has also admitted that some of the policies that were done when Bill was president did not work out so well. I see this as someone learning from their mistakes. Most people will learn from mistakes and move on.

Donald doesn't make mistakes. Failures are always somebody else's fault because he's perfect and such a great businessman that he loses almost a billion dollars while the economy is doing well. It's not his fault that he was sued by the justice department (under the Nixon administration, no less) for housing discrimination. It's not his fault that Trump Airlines went bankrupt, after all, turning a bottom feeder airline into a luxury airliner is sure to succeed, right? It's not his fault that his foundation funded his businesses with other people's donated money even though it was illegal for his foundation to collect money? It's not his fault that his casinos went bankrupt or that his father illegally bailed him out by buying chips. It's not his fault that he's so misogynous towards women, especially ones he doesn't think are pretty. It's also not his fault that most stuff he says is untrue. After all, Hillary is a liar compared to Trump.

If anyone feels they're entitled, it's the Donald because he's just perfect and can never do no wrong and is such an awesome businessman, after all, he always says, "Trust me."

Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them...

Nope, that's a lie put out by Trump. (as are >50% of his statements. I really don't understand why anyone would uncritically repeat him). This has been debunked so many times, I'd feel silly just picking one source to refute it. Just Google "IRS audit statement Trump" and pick your favorite.

The best that can be said for it (which I read on The Hill), was that it wouldn't be legally very smart of him to do so, as the media is liable to end up doing a lot of the IRS's investigative work for them, but that's still entirely his choice (and could be said about anyone). Clinton and every other major-party POTUS candidate have done so anyway. The fact that's he's afraid to do so is pretty damning.

A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity,

You know that that is misleading to the point of lying, right? The Clinton Foundation doesn't give much money to other charities, true. Instead it runs it's own charitable programs, and percentage-wise spends less on payroll and administrative employee expenses than most charities. I don't know if the CF is a wonderful charity or not, but it is spending money better than other charities. It's been under constant scrutiny by anti-Clinton folks for years; if they were shielding assets for the Clintons it would have come out. Instead, people just repeat the same lies as you did

In a sense, it does lower the Clinton's taxes, in the way that donating to any charity reduces your taxes. It also means that that money is no longer theirs, which is why most people don't give 10% of their income to charity. But nobody has demonstrated that the Clintons are particularly using the CF money on themselves. Maybe they are and nobody has found the evidence (unlike with Trump's foundation). Or maybe you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't?

For some people (e.g. partisans) no fact, outcome, or thought is acceptable that doesn't trash Clinton.

There's no room for the outcome of an FBI investigation that concludes the technician in question was engaged in legitimate work.

There's no room for the fact that of all emails that passed through Mrs. Clinton's email server only a minority seem to have been classified as the time they were sent. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

The FBI called the setup "extremely careless" but noted "Comey said the Justice Department shouldnâ(TM)t prosecute Clinton because there isnâ(TM)t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didnâ(TM)t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice."

Well ... no such nuance will ever be accepted in a political contest. That tells me how to interpret the snide and insinuating remarks by AC.

I don't blame the Trump campaign (and Fox News) for bashing away at this single point ... but let's at least see it for what it is: political ammunition for someone who doesn't have all that much leverage aside from insinuations and mud-slinging.

Mrs. Clinton is as competent as Dick Cheney. If we can put up with him, we can put up with Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Trump however is another kettle of fish altogether. Intellectually he's in the same league as Sarah Palin. And he's the kind of guy you cannot tell that a stove is hot. He has to put his finger on it before he believes it. That's fine for a businessman, but it's a terrible liability in a prospective president because in international politics you don't often get a second chance, so you'd best be extremely careful and self-controlled.

As I see it, that rules out Mr. Trump no mater who he's running against.

Why should Benghazi come up?

Other than the fact that multiple investigations by Republicans over many years failed to point to anything that was really her fault. No, it's just their desperation (and yours) to pin it on her. I think you'd pin the Lindberg kidnapping on her if it would make you feel better. Even in your response you can't separate Benghazi with other things she may have done.

That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.

Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything. What does that say about the GOP? Let me ask you: if you think she broke the law, would you support the FBI going after the Bush administration for using private emails as well? Also they deleted all of them which were never recovered.

When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard ..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.

Trump lies daily about small factual things like what he said for which there is video. He lies about everything. For Clinton's TPP lie, it was rated as halfway true by Politifact. Yes she said it but at the time the TPP was not finished. She clearly opposes TPP in its present form.

It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company) ...

Unstable? How do you know she's unstable, again. Are you already attacking her character first? Freudian slip?

Her story is that he called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping." If both are true, those statements are fat-shaming and racist. Your defense of Trump isn't that he didn't say those things (Frankly we all tend to believe he would) but that he can't be racist because he has Latina female workers? He certainly can say racist things (and he does) and still work with Latinas. The two are not mutually exclusive.

this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior.

Now you are deflecting about Trump's clear misogynistic tendencies by bringing up Bill Clinton. It still does not excuse what Trump does no matter how you want to deflect it.

But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.

This is a false dichotomy as it implies Trump has never used character assassination or has had decades of deceit and lying. He has.

Okian Warrior, off the top of your head, answer me right now:

Do you think that one/third of US Uranium reserves were actually physically sent to Russia?

I do not.

Why - is it important?

Because of what you wrote:

Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia

Sure seems like you're implying she actually sold US National reserves of Uranium, isn't it?

Since what actually happened was that Uranium One, a Canadian Company, was bought out by a Russian-state owned one, all it means is that they have legal title to Uranium in the US, which still has to be sold in the US, which means...what exactly?

Really, give us 3 bad things that Russia can now do.

(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)

Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.

Well, let's see, an illegal loan of 3.5 million dollars from his father is a great deal more than 500,000, so you're lying again without even challenging on your account of Hillary, you're lying. And that you started this by complaining about name-calling from liberals? What are you doing? Trying to practice dementia so you can get money from the VA?

Okian Warrior, I know you've admitted to being a troll, but you can stop anytime. Just click log out and never log in again.

> 1) Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia

The truth is:

(a) Not 1/3 of "our reserves" more like controlling interest in a mining company with mineral rights for about 20% of the uranium in the ground and it is staying in the ground.

(b) NINE other federal agencies also had to sign off on the deal, along with state and local agencies.

Last things first because it's easy

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

Some samples:

"On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling."

"Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. "

As for exacerbating current racial tensions it's how he talks about about racial groups and uses xenophobia as a tool.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

His lovely tweet "#JebBush has to like Mexican Illegals because of his wife"

His insistence that we have to fear all Muslims immigrants

It's certainly a less clear cut point then his budget plan as it can't be easily quantified like money can but it's there.

Hillary is a bigger racist taking money from the KKK and not sending it back.
Did I mention her self proclaimed "mentor" is Robert Byrd, former leader of the KKK? He is also the INDIVIDUAL that filibustered the civil rights act of 1963 trying to prevent it by himself from passing.
Clinton who referred to blacks as Superpreadators.

I think there is a racist running, and her name is Hillary and she has a LONG history of being racist.

Compare http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ and http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Hillary has around 15% of her statements as False or Pants on Fire, while Trump has over half his statements as False or Pants on fire. Facts matter more than you how you feel. Hillary isn't the most honest politician, but compared to Trump she's a paragon.

Compare http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ and http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Hillary has around 15% of her statements as False or Pants on Fire, while Trump has over half his statements as False or Pants on fire. Facts matter more than you how you feel. Hillary isn't the most honest politician, but compared to Trump she's a paragon.

And yet Hillary shows 22% True on politifact, while trump is at 4% True

That refers to factoids candidates spice their political speeches with. It doesn't tell you anything about what the candidates will actually do.

So, because Hillary may correctly state "the sky is blue" and Politifact counts that as "mostly true" doesn't mean that Hillary is truthful about "I will not raise middle-class taxes".

Of course, most of Hillary's political program is so awful that you better hope that she is lying about it.

Yes, that's the spirit! Brush off all the lies — by smearing those, who bring them up, if necessary.

Whatever it takes, stick to your champion until the end, however bitter. If only other Clinton-supporters were as iron-willed as you, she'd have had no problem going through that glass ceiling without even so much as a headache...

For what purpose would they want to change the email address inside of an email?

For email details go here: politifact's email factsheet.

Clinton has released something like 60,000 emails, decades of tax returns. Her families charity is rated very well and has saved lots of lives.

I can't think of anything Trump released that is particularly verifiable. Is his election disclosure form under penalty of perjury? I don't think so. His doctor's info could easily be fiction. Certain his doc seems to basically say that he did what Trump wanted.

So you know massive amounts about Clinton and can complain about tiny bits of it all day, but know essentially nothing about Trump, other than he lies continually and then blames all of his faults on his current opponent. Well we also know he hasn't contributed much to charity before this election started. The reporters actually investigated.

The choice is between someone who is credible if perhaps less than inspiring and someone you can't believe a word he says. Hell he began his political scampaign with the biggest lie he could think of, that the President was "other". He finally admitted that was a lie. Racism worked so well for him that it was his second act as well, with saying his magic wall paid for by magic wishes will keep the evil mexican murdering rapists out. Hell just to go full racist he added "banning muslims".

Seriously, why is he doing so well in the polls?

What are the poison pills you are reffering to?

Democrats want direct funding for plan parenthood in the bill to help deal with Zika. Republicans don't want this, but would allow for states to allocate money as needed (including plan parenthood).

Democrats want this bill considered to be emergency funding, but Republicans have paid for part of the 1.1 billion dollar bill with 750 million from ~100 million of unused funds from Ebola and ~540 million from unused funds from the affordable health care act. The funds for the affordable health care act were unused because in some US territories it was not feasible to setup exchanges and they opted for additional medicare funding and so did not need the money to setup the exchanges.

So nothing really poisonous going on, just disagreement.

NNope. Republicans banned Planned Parenthood funding in Puerto Rico. But they've lost the image on it just like they did for the shutdowns, and no, nobody believes the crap about the Confederate flag belongs either.

Republicans tried to make a political grand-standing, and failed, they weren't doing anything but with lives.

Why do you expect the rest of us to fall for it? Why do you have so little regard for anyone else?

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

Wasn't really the problem.

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

Even his VP can't do it.

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

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

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

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

Wasn't really the problem.

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

Even his VP can't do it.

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

Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,

Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.

In that case, one wonders at your ability to honestly listen to what they are saying, let alone represent it accurately.

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists.

Except, you know, the actual evidence.

And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.

Oh my, are you confused, and think that it's individual ability that matters? You should know by now that it's about the purpose of the Voter ID law. Which is to restrict voter's to those desired by Republicans.

2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.

Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms.

Oh no, you're the one making that excuse, since you want to perpetuate these voter ID laws.

And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)

That is what this judicial ruling said. Because as already noted, it is illegal to impose a disparate burden.

3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?

The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations.

Oh no, you'll find that states which issue such licenses do not correlate with the Voter ID states very well. But even then, as you can see, they also require documentation. Just not for citizenship.

Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your

Hillary had thousands and thousands of emails with classified information on them

You mean 113? Out of tens of thousands?

an unauthorized, insecure private email server.

As opposed to an unauthorized, insecure state department email server?

The private server is a complete red herring, the confidential emails weren't supposed to go over the standard state dept email either. And she was definitely not the only one to have sent or received confidential email on an unauthorized account.

And also destroyed evidence without authorization, something that Sandy Berger went to prison for.

He stuffed the docs into his pants, it's pretty obvious he knew he was violating the law.

Intent does not matter, only the action matters.

Yeah, why let one of the basic factors in criminal law influence your analysis?

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to âoeknowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.â

Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!

Was she or was she not charged with mishandling classified information?

You miss the point. Once they have one legitimate charge then they hit you with every other possible charge they can.

You idiots who get your "news" from late night comics cannot resist outing yourselves with that childish "Drumpf" nonesense.

Trump was born with the last name "Trump" - he was NEVER named "Drumpf". You think you're being clever by insisting that he ought to go by some name a low-quality stand-up quasi-comic claims an ancestor of his had.

How about we use some REALITY and TRUTH on your hero politicians?

1. Is Barack Obama's name "Barry Soetoro"? He actually used that name for himself as a younger man. No imagination by comics is needed. (note: the college ID card image circulating on the net with that name on it is a photoshop job, but he DID use that name)

2. Was Barack Obama born in Kenya? I happen to believe he was born in Hawaii, but his own literary agent (not some right-wing enemy) listed him as born in Kenya all the way up until 2007 just as he began his run for President. You don't have to get that from some late-night comic or from some enemy of his.

3. Was Hillary Clinton named after Sir Edmund Hillary? She claimed it and even her fans at Politifact confirm both that she claimed it and that it was not reasonably true given that Sir Edmund Hillary was not yet famous at the time she was born.

Need I go on to further illustrate how dumb, childish, and hypocritical you "Drumpfers" are?

Yup.

http://www.hannity.com/article...

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

These people have no money yet they walk around with expensive cellphones..

That is not a problem limited to "the poor". 47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 to meet an unexpected expense.

I know many people like that. Some of my well paid co-workers will tell me they have to "wait until payday" for a purchase or even to go out to lunch. My sister, who makes $80k and owns a house, occasionally needs to borrow money from me for some minor expense, like fixing a flat tire on her car, because she has already spent her paycheck. She has zero savings, and no financial cushion whatsoever, yet she just got back from a Mediterranean cruise.

I couldn't live like that. The stress would drive me nuts. When I was 18, and got my first paycheck, I invested half of it in an index fund, and my savings have increased monotonically since then, even through college (I worked part time and had a military scholarship).

The idiots you went to high school with didn't suddenly get smart. People are quite dumb, on average.

These people have no money yet they walk around with expensive cellphones..

That is not a problem limited to "the poor". 47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 to meet an unexpected expense.

I know many people like that. Some of my well paid co-workers will tell me they have to "wait until payday" for a purchase or even to go out to lunch. My sister, who makes $80k and owns a house, occasionally needs to borrow money from me for some minor expense, like fixing a flat tire on her car, because she has already spent her paycheck. She has zero savings, and no financial cushion whatsoever, yet she just got back from a Mediterranean cruise.

I couldn't live like that. The stress would drive me nuts. When I was 18, and got my first paycheck, I invested half of it in an index fund, and my savings have increased monotonically since then, even through college (I worked part time and had a military scholarship).

(Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.)

I'm sorry, but you've got that wrong:

In the United States, a few limited eight-hour-day laws were on the books shortly after the Civil War. One, in Illinois, was passed in 1867, followed in 1868 by a law covering certain classes of federal workers. But neither law was well-enforced, and in most sectors, working hours of 10 to 12 hours were common. So a reduction in the work week became a leading issue for the nascent labor movement.

The issue came to a head in 1884, after the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions -- a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO -- called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, labor leaders upped the ante by calling for demonstrations. In Chicago, peaceful marches morphed into violence, with an explosion marring a rally at Haymarket Square on May 4, 1886, leaving seven police officers and four workers dead. Subsequent trials, executions and clemencies for the accused made the eight-hour week a top issue nationally and internationally.

All of this occurred decades before Ford founded his company in 1903.

Ford didn't implement the 40 hour workweek until 1926.

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

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