Slashdot Mirror

Politifact, hardly a right-wing site, claims your defense of Clinton as mostly false. But hey, Hillary! said her e-mail server was allowed and all A-OK per the State Department lawyers. Except it really wasn't at all, and she was lying through her teeth.

Politifact, hardly a right-wing site, claims your defense of Clinton as mostly false. But hey, Hillary! said her e-mail server was allowed and all A-OK per the State Department lawyers. Except it really wasn't at all, and she was lying through her teeth.

the current situation where one can not stand a basic living standard out of a full time minimal wages job.

"If you have a job in this country, (thereâ(TM)s a) 97 percent chance that you're not going to be in poverty."

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

And that doesn't even start to address the question of whether the "poverty" line is set unrealistically low.

You should compare Trump's relationship with the truth:

Donald Trump

To Clinton's relationship with the truth:

Hillary Clinton

You should compare Trump's relationship with the truth:

Donald Trump

To Clinton's relationship with the truth:

Hillary Clinton

Strangely I noticed she told the truth to the mine workers in West Virginia a while back.

Didja now?

You mean when she said this:

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

> Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate

And Hillary doesn't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No she doesn't, in fact politifact gives her a slightly better score than Sanders.

That video is mostly just nitpicking on context, so what if she's not completely consistent in identifying as progressive or moderate? Neither am I. But I'm not lying as much as responding to the context and applying very subjective definitions.

Maybe if the progressives cared more about picking someone decent, we'd have Sanders and you'd have no reason to worry about Trump at all.

Maybe but I expect it would be a lot worse.

His numbers are good now but no one outside the Democratic base is paying attention to his policy, they just like him because he seems like a competent political outsider. They probably even think he's a moderate since his connections to the party are so weak.

The problem is that independents who don't identify as Democrats because the party is too moderate are not a good representation of the Democratic base.

Sanders isn't more popular right now because he's the stronger candidate.

He's popular because he's the weaker candidate, the Republicans haven't touched him all race because they'd love him as the Democratic nominee, or at least rile up the "Bernie or Bust" folks as much as possible so they won't support Hillary and give Trump the election.

I'm sorry but situations like Sanders are exactly the reason that match-up polls aren't considered predictive at this stage.

> Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate

And Hillary doesn't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No she doesn't, in fact politifact gives her a slightly better score than Sanders.

That video is mostly just nitpicking on context, so what if she's not completely consistent in identifying as progressive or moderate? Neither am I. But I'm not lying as much as responding to the context and applying very subjective definitions.

Maybe if the progressives cared more about picking someone decent, we'd have Sanders and you'd have no reason to worry about Trump at all.

Maybe but I expect it would be a lot worse.

His numbers are good now but no one outside the Democratic base is paying attention to his policy, they just like him because he seems like a competent political outsider. They probably even think he's a moderate since his connections to the party are so weak.

The problem is that independents who don't identify as Democrats because the party is too moderate are not a good representation of the Democratic base.

Sanders isn't more popular right now because he's the stronger candidate.

He's popular because he's the weaker candidate, the Republicans haven't touched him all race because they'd love him as the Democratic nominee, or at least rile up the "Bernie or Bust" folks as much as possible so they won't support Hillary and give Trump the election.

I'm sorry but situations like Sanders are exactly the reason that match-up polls aren't considered predictive at this stage.

If in the future Stephen Hawking has his science proven wrong is he then considered ignorant? Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?

If you think Newton was ignorant you have a bad definition of ignorant.

Ignorance is defined by your beliefs in relation to your society, both Hawking and Newton are far from ignorant by that definition.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate. That is a verifiable fact.

I think a scientist would be well justified in calling his ideas and statements ignorant.

After much digging, I found your source...Bill Maher.

The truth of the matter is that the average _restaurant_ front line worker is 29. That includes servers and cooks at real restaurants, who generally make decent money for their skill levels, not minimum wage.

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

Politico was very generous calling it 'mostly true'. As I said, dishonest argument noted. It was even worse than I thought. They not only conflated minimum wage FF workers with all FF workers, they conflated all restaurant workers with minimum wage FF workers. Lying sacks of shit IMHO.

Because I forgot to add a source: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

the budget was balanced in spite of clinton, not because of him. one note.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Of course the data doesnt support that.

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

If you scroll down to the table where they list every increase in national minimum wage and its effect on job growth you can plainly see that minimum wage increases seem to have very little effect on overall employment in a historic context. Some increases lead to job losses, some to job gains.

Did you conclude that yourself from listening to him, and the context of his words? It sounds more like you are repeating an interpretation of his words from some very recent news articles. What you'll find out about Trump is that he's not one who thinks there is only one way to solve a problem or move forward.

Trump believes there is 42% unemployment in the United States.

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

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

And Obama saying he visited 52 states!

Nope, wrong on two counts. The first is that the claim is that he said 57 states. Which instead of defending, President Obama would readily admit was simply misspeaking, as can be observed in the video. He sounds tired, and he's obviously working down, so he left out a forty. It happens. Any number of orators have made gaffes.

But the second is that you don't understand how hysterical Republicans get over it. Instead of chuckling a bit, and moving on, they've concocted a story Islamic States. Which speaks to religion-baiting at the least, outright paranoia at the worst.

Of course, this is the same group that passes around letters about curtains being Islamic. Curtains from the Kennedy era.

What Trump is saying is the law, the Liberals are the ones who change it to hate.

Nope. Quote some of Trump's other words:

"The U.S. will invite El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord who just escaped prison, to become a U.S. citizen because our "leaders" can't say no!"

"Our great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!"

“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?"

“Rosie O’Donnell’s disgusting both inside and out. You take a look at her, she’s a slob. She talks like a truck driver, she doesn’t have her facts, she’ll say anything that comes to her mind. Her show failed when it was a talk show, the ratings went very, very, very low and very bad, and she got essentially thrown off television. I mean she’s basically a disaster.”

"going to build a wall on the border" News flash, that is already a law
"Asking immigrants their religion" News flash, that is already the law

Newsflash: Laws can be racist.

All Trump is saying is that he is going to enforce the law, and that is a message people like to hear after 8 years of Obama ignoring the law.

Nope, it's a message people like to hear when they've been told something is happening, and because of their own fear-driven bigotry, they want to believe it to be the truth. It's easy to get people to believe things like that.

I say no to hate, that is why I vote against Democrats. Democrats hate Americans more then anyone. But Democrat voters seem fine with being hated.

Sure dude, sure. What about the Know-Nothing Party?

I would not describe a hack of an AOL email address as a stepping stone to hacking another system.

But the original has a much better description. He's claiming he saw clintonemail.com's IP while reading Blumenthal's emails, and then used a port scanner to identify vulnerabilities in her server.

If it's true, and can be verified from server logs, it could be important. Hillary Clinton cannot be charged in Court with violating an Executive order, so the law everyone says she broke is almost completely irrelevant to her fate in Court. The ones that are relevant to the Judicial branch are statutes, and they tend to only ban a) willful fuck-ups with information (ie: you not only had to do it wrong, you had to know you were doing it wrong), or b) only come into play if somebody actually sees the info.

a) is virtually impossible to prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt when your only predecessor who used email used a private server, but if there's proof of b)...

Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":

"The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information [emphasis mine -mi]. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite."

To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is the height of hypocrisy — the greatest sin of a politician. That the server contained not merely "sensitive", but in same cases "top secret" data may be, what will send her to prison. But it is the hypocrisy, that ought to derail her presidential bid.

Whether or not her server was hacked by anyone is besides the point.

400 Americans have more wealth than half of all other Americans
PolitiFact

I automatically discredit any article that starts with "Michael Moore says"

Not to mention that the wealth of a nation lies in the general public.

It does not. Half the world' wealth is held by the top 1% of individuals PBS

There are 120 nations with less wealth each than Bill Gates alone Knoema

400 Americans have more wealth than half of all other Americans PolitiFact

If you look at the detail of those 400 richest Americans you find that a small percentage of those have more than all the rest of the 400.

Getting the picture?

And yet, we spend more per pupil than nearly every other country. So, any claim regarding increased funding, while it may sound logical, isn't backed up by any evidence. Note, that I'm not disagreeing with your assertion on class size, only that I prefer to deal with evidence based decision making, as "common sense" isn't always correct.

http://www.politifact.com/flor...

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

Obama promised all kinds of things on the campaign trail too, and then as soon as he was elected adopted Bush's policies.

Promise Kept: 45%
Compromise: 25%
Promise Broken: 22%
Stalled: 2%
In the Works: 6%
Not yet rated: 0%

Point of information: Obama has actually done a half-decent job at keeping his campaign promises, despite sustained opposition from Congress.

But in Trump's case that's probably an euphemism for a pathological liar: http://www.politifact.com/pers...

He's a bigger liar than the other presidential candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers... (Ted Cruz is a big liar too, but still beaten by Trump)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

See also: https://zacherybrasier.com/201...

Being a bigger liar than most top politicians makes Trump different but it doesn't make him better.

There may be some debate on how accurate that site is but you can check for yourself what Trump says. It will show that he's lying a lot and more than most of the rest.

You're doing it wrong if you're voting for someone who lies even more than top politicians.

If you want to vote for someone different and less likely to be part of the establishment go vote for Jill Stein ("no data") or someone who is not such a big liar.

But in Trump's case that's probably an euphemism for a pathological liar: http://www.politifact.com/pers...

He's a bigger liar than the other presidential candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers... (Ted Cruz is a big liar too, but still beaten by Trump)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

See also: https://zacherybrasier.com/201...

Being a bigger liar than most top politicians makes Trump different but it doesn't make him better.

There may be some debate on how accurate that site is but you can check for yourself what Trump says. It will show that he's lying a lot and more than most of the rest.

You're doing it wrong if you're voting for someone who lies even more than top politicians.

If you want to vote for someone different and less likely to be part of the establishment go vote for Jill Stein ("no data") or someone who is not such a big liar.

But in Trump's case that's probably an euphemism for a pathological liar: http://www.politifact.com/pers...

He's a bigger liar than the other presidential candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers... (Ted Cruz is a big liar too, but still beaten by Trump)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

See also: https://zacherybrasier.com/201...

Being a bigger liar than most top politicians makes Trump different but it doesn't make him better.

There may be some debate on how accurate that site is but you can check for yourself what Trump says. It will show that he's lying a lot and more than most of the rest.

You're doing it wrong if you're voting for someone who lies even more than top politicians.

If you want to vote for someone different and less likely to be part of the establishment go vote for Jill Stein ("no data") or someone who is not such a big liar.

But in Trump's case that's probably an euphemism for a pathological liar: http://www.politifact.com/pers...

He's a bigger liar than the other presidential candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers... (Ted Cruz is a big liar too, but still beaten by Trump)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

See also: https://zacherybrasier.com/201...

Being a bigger liar than most top politicians makes Trump different but it doesn't make him better.

There may be some debate on how accurate that site is but you can check for yourself what Trump says. It will show that he's lying a lot and more than most of the rest.

You're doing it wrong if you're voting for someone who lies even more than top politicians.

If you want to vote for someone different and less likely to be part of the establishment go vote for Jill Stein ("no data") or someone who is not such a big liar.

But in Trump's case that's probably an euphemism for a pathological liar: http://www.politifact.com/pers...

He's a bigger liar than the other presidential candidates:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers... (Ted Cruz is a big liar too, but still beaten by Trump)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

See also: https://zacherybrasier.com/201...

Being a bigger liar than most top politicians makes Trump different but it doesn't make him better.

There may be some debate on how accurate that site is but you can check for yourself what Trump says. It will show that he's lying a lot and more than most of the rest.

You're doing it wrong if you're voting for someone who lies even more than top politicians.

If you want to vote for someone different and less likely to be part of the establishment go vote for Jill Stein ("no data") or someone who is not such a big liar.

One, it is pointless because it won't happen.

If you told me 20 years ago, that a self-identified "Democratic Socialist" (and a bona-fide Communist underneath) will soon have a fair shot at becoming President of the US, I would've dismissed it with the same derision... But today's youth does not care any more — the Socialism/Communism's 100 years of failure (and mass-murder) are not taught in schools.

Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".

Currently is the caveat-emptor, is not it? Look on this very board — numerous people speak in favor of "single payer", and they all vote...

Even the most socialized of all medical systems still give the physicians at least as much autonomy as our system does.

TFA is not about "authority" — it is about incompetence. When doctors become government-employees — as they are in Cuba so beloved by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, and other worker paradises — the healthcare will suck just as it does there.

And we are on our way — by many indications, Obamacare was designed to fail, and is failing as "CO-OPs" go bankrupt, and major commercial insurers threaten to withdraw. It did not "bend the curve" of the costs either — the grows of healthcare costs is accelerating.

It will continue to suck. Which will allow the next "progressive" President to claim "the market approach has failed" — and turn to a government-owned (euphemistically called "single payer") system. Obama himself would've done it — with enthusiastic support from morons like certain anonymous cowards replying to you — but "the nation was not ready" so he simply laid down the ground work for the future:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

In other words, you are just parroting standard slashdot conservative FUD.

You seem like the kind, who'd be trying t

This is only really a half-truth at best.

Sure, if you consider loaning the campaign money which he can reclaim or write off as a tax dodge when it fails as "self-funding", then yes.

Otherwise he has been using funds contributed to the campaign, just like every other candidate. And funds he's spending? Half of it goes back in to his own companies for stuff like rides in his own jet.

What he is *not* using is "traditional" fundraising and super PACs unlike Clinton and so on.

[source: http://www.politifact.com/trut... ]

Then there's Donald Trump talking about John McCain.

How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?

Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?

Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.

Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?

White-washing does not equate lying.

I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!

You mean run a primary campaign?

Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals

I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.

you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!

Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.

Here, I'll help you out, there's a few in there, of course Sanders is more-or-less the same.

Heck, just a couple days ago Sanders said “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president." except Clinton didn't say that.

So wouldn't that qualify as a lie?

How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?

Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?

Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.

Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?

White-washing does not equate lying.

I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!

You mean run a primary campaign?

Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals

I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.

you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!

Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.

Here, I'll help you out, there's a few in there, of course Sanders is more-or-less the same.

Heck, just a couple days ago Sanders said “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president." except Clinton didn't say that.

So wouldn't that qualify as a lie?

Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?

There are two parties. One is openly saying, we will use these nasty methods to protect the country. Weight your safety against the discomfort you feel about it, and vote for us, if you agree with us.

The other noisily denounce the very choice as "false", promises not to do anything unpleasant, gets elected based (in substantial part) on that promise, and then does it anyway. Because "it is complicated" — you bet it is, and so it was for the other guy, whom you denounced for "piping fear" and "shredding the Constitution".

The FBI attorney is (purposefully?) confusing possible and probable as well as level of risk. Is it possible that terrorists will see WhatsApp's encryption, flock there, and plot a huge attack resulting in many deaths unseen by law enforcement? Certainly. It is also possible that the terrorists will wake up tomorrow morning realizing that this whole "kill everyone different than us" thing is idiotic, will drop their weapons, and take up a less destructive hobby. Both are possible, but are also not very probable. The recent attacks have been planned using SMS and other unencrypted communication methods. If law enforcement can't catch them when they're not encrypting, why go through the bother of deploying encryption?

As far as of level risk goes, there were 32,727 deaths due to terrorism worldwide in 2014 (Source). Even adding all terrorism deaths together since 2006 gives 161,834. Remember, this is worldwide. If we wanted to limit this to US deaths from terrorism, we'd get 303 American deaths from 2004-2014 (Source). In contrast, 2014 had 17.6 million identity theft victims in the US alone. (Source)

This all means that you have almost a 639,000 times greater risk of being an identity theft victim than a terrorism victim. Granted, I doubt many people are going to use WhatsApp to share information that could be used in identity theft, but this isn't the FBI vs. WhatsApp any more than it was just the FBI vs. Apple. It's the FBI vs Encryption. They want to see encryption either go away or be backdoored so they can get in at any time. Unfortunately, if this were to happen, a lot more people would find themselves vulnerable to various scams and the number of terrorists captured would be at or near zero.

This isn't even "trading liberty for security" as much as it is "trading security for some nebulous promise of possible security later on."

http://www.politifact.com/virg...

You sure there might not be another reason, like maybe one news source lies more frequently than the others?

Solyndra

More like this. And, yeah, it is true — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.

But the point was not to blame a particular industry — only to remind, that any case of government bureaucrats either spending taxpayers' money or being in a position to allow or disallow something is fertile ground for corruption. Which, of course, leads to the immediate conclusion, that the fewer there are of such situations, the better.

You are conflating several bullshit statistics, cherry picked without rhyme or reason.
Meanwhile, back in reality, concealed carry laws have been debunked as the cause for lower crime rates.
And no, it isn't the stand your ground laws either.

Hint: Florida ain't the only state with conceal carry nor stand-your-ground laws. Where are those supposed low Florida numbers in all other states?
In fact, ALL 50 STATES have concealed carry laws. It's just that some require a concealed carry LICENSE.
Of those that DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE - two (Alaska, New Mexico) are first and second on the list of the most dangerous US states, due to their high violent crime rate.
Florida is ninth.
Shouldn't easier concealed carry mean less violent crime?

And what about three other states (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont) that also don't require a license - but which are among the most peaceful states?
Vermont and Maine being the most peaceful states.
How can the same easier concealed carry actually create less violent crime in these states but not in others?

I.e. Concealed carry, with or without a permit IS NOT the cause nor is it an indicator of violent crime rates.

a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush)

No, no previous secretary of state has ever run their own email server.

UPI: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice got classified email on private accounts
Guardian: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails
NBC: Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails

Here's a quote: "Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks. "State's system at the time was inadequate," he said."

...The practice was illegal at the time that Hillary started as SofS.

Wrong again.

Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported: "A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history." The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.

and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information.

No, HUMINT is classified as TOP SECRET//HCS from the source, and is at no time permitted to be UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.

Sorry. The emails in question were classified later. In fact, the .gov address wouldn't have been secure, either. Here's probably the best discussion: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."

Incidentially, that is what happened with Rice's aide's and Powell's email accounts: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

https://www.google.com/search?... (pick whatever source you don't disbelieve..)

Wow, pages of links to blogs and unreliable sources that contain speculation but no real information. Scrolling down to the first one I found that even comes close t

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

we do not really know how to defend ourselves against what is happening, not without turning into savages ourselves

Of course, we do:

• Enforce your visa laws.
• Do not provide governmental assistance and deport those, who sneak in despite your efforts

There is nothing "savage" about either of the two measures. Whoever feels sympathetic to the people displaced by war or any other kind of disaster, is welcome to help them in any way they choose directly.

The current situation makes no sense at all. Ukraine, for example — itself a European country with customs quite similar to those of EU members — has been struggling to obtain a visa-free status with EU for years. Meanwhile, folks with completely different ideas of how to live (and dress and pray) are allowed to immigrate en masse.

The US is different, but no less bizarre. For example, while the government actively prosecutes rich folks coming to US to give birth, who pay for it themselves and go back, the poor folks who can't afford healthcare themselves are effectively encouraged to come (illegally), give birth and stay . South Americans cross into the US daily while the Border Control intercepts only about 61%.

To America's credit, we seem to be better at dealing with the "wonderful tapestry of diversity", but there is nothing "savage" about wanting less of it — diversity is not strength, it is an expensive luxury.

We know how to do it and there is nothing "savage" about saying "no". But our current elites just would not do it — whether due to some misplaced compassion or desire for cheaper gardeners and cherry-pickers.

According to Politifact, Hillary lies about 28% of the time (counting Mostly False,False and Pants on Fire) and tells the truth 52% of the time (True and Mostly True)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

By comparison, Bernie Sanders lies about 29% of the time and tells the truth 51% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Ted Cruz lies 60% of the time and tells the truth 22% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

And Donald Trump lies 77% of the time and tells the truth 10% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

According to Politifact, Hillary lies about 28% of the time (counting Mostly False,False and Pants on Fire) and tells the truth 52% of the time (True and Mostly True)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

By comparison, Bernie Sanders lies about 29% of the time and tells the truth 51% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Ted Cruz lies 60% of the time and tells the truth 22% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

And Donald Trump lies 77% of the time and tells the truth 10% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

According to Politifact, Hillary lies about 28% of the time (counting Mostly False,False and Pants on Fire) and tells the truth 52% of the time (True and Mostly True)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

By comparison, Bernie Sanders lies about 29% of the time and tells the truth 51% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Ted Cruz lies 60% of the time and tells the truth 22% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

And Donald Trump lies 77% of the time and tells the truth 10% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

According to Politifact, Hillary lies about 28% of the time (counting Mostly False,False and Pants on Fire) and tells the truth 52% of the time (True and Mostly True)
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

By comparison, Bernie Sanders lies about 29% of the time and tells the truth 51% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Ted Cruz lies 60% of the time and tells the truth 22% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

And Donald Trump lies 77% of the time and tells the truth 10% of the time
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

1. Did you think I was endeavoring to accomplish that? Whatever gave you that impression? I did not say that transparency was bad, I was simply giving my thoughts on what you said, by using your own words to highlight how easy it is to misunderstand and misrepresent the actual sentiment which was expressed. Even though, in fact, those words in particular spoken by Nancy Pelosi are clearly available to anybody who wishes to see them. If you did not apprehend my reasons, before, then perhaps you can see them now, and contemplate what shall be done in light of that consideration I have offered regarding the potential for distortion.

Like said by some esteemed wit, a lie got halfway around the world before the truth got its pants on. What you have heard was said, and represented it to be, is not, in fact, what was said, when in fact, she was speaking about the problem herself. That to understand things, we'd have to really see them.

Whether or not she was correct in her assessment of the particulars, the principle remains true, don't you think?

Whatever shall be done?

2. Ah, but you did not mention complexity per se, but focused on length. There is a difference between complexity and brevity. Why just above, if I had expounded further upon my intent, you might have apprehended it better, so that alone demonstrates the utility of sometimes expanding upon one's thoughts to increase comprehension rather than serve some ill-intent. I could have chosen to express myself simply, yet would have had to speak further upon it to make my point clear.

Moving further on, to another convenient demonstration, I do apologize for not mentioning this earlier, as well as my earlier mistake due to inattention with referring to it as words instead of pages(and that caused an error of my own, though not one that changes my position on the Constitution of Alabama), but the figure you give? Is apparently questionable, if not outright bogus. I have seem many sources, that one would think are authoritative, declare such a length to the US Tax Code, but yet others claim it to be specious. This too can serve to illustrate the problem with overly brief remarks. Even referring to pages?

You see, while it is is undoubtedly brief to simply state that "70,000 pages" is too long, that doesn't serve well to point out a problem, and itself may not be sufficiently accurate. In fact, that remark itself may serve to mislead, even in its shortness. The emotional reaction to such a length is a given, but is it really the state of affairs, or are you just being fooled into reacting, and giving a phrasing that triggers the same in others, who will not even stop to consider what it really is?

Even thought it is a truth that in some way, it is possible to arrange whatever constitutes the tax code to be said length, that will not mean much, other than it is possible to arrange the contents in that manner. It does not tell us about those specific contents, merely sets up a reaction based on emotion. Much like say, the Size of Wikipedia, is of little importance when measuring the contents of the work itself.

Yes, it is possible to deceive with length, but it is also possible to deceive with brevity. Sometimes you need to get into a more lengthy examination, that while the pieces may be simple, are part of a complex whole. To really reform the tax code, I think, based on your choice to use a questionable example, it will be best if you take the time to consider your position a bit more carefully, and choose your further expressions with due examination. I have no doubt there is much reform and improvement you could do, as a work that has built up