Slashdot Mirror

The voters in the first article may be interested to learn the discrimination has an Anglo-Saxon cultural basis, but I doubt they would find solace in that in any case.

Some people want to find discrimination or outrage everywhere. I read the article you linked and I honestly find not a thing to be outraged about. Do you?

Once again, the subject is not ballot-box stuffing or similar attempts at mass fraud. Voter fraud is when someone impersonates another person at the poll or tricks authorities when registering to vote; That is salient to the subject of voter IDs and immigrants.

Here is a link [wikipedia.org] about written tests in US voting history. Also, more recently poll taxes. [wikipedia.org] As with Tamany Hall, this is grade school history.

Yes, history that happened well over 50 years ago. History that also, despite your protestations, did involve people voting as other people. You might as well be saying how you think we're about to start interning Japanese again. Times have changed, people have changed, situations have changed, the population has changed, and the country as a whole has changed. Jim Crow isn't coming back. Drawing a false analogy between verifying voter identity (that again, the vast majority of people already have, and are available without cost from almost all states) and, e.g., literacy tests, is ludicrous.

That judicialwatch link is an opinion piece from nine years ago that doesn't even give a rough idea of scale beyond weasel words like "many". It has one broken link to a newspaper, and several other links that are activist groups (just as judicialwatch is, itself, a conservative activist group). IOW, they don't feel confident enough to link directly to research and they conveniently left statistics out. You took accepted their opinion as true on their authority. The other articles you think you saw were probably about accusations that didn't pan out -- see the studies I referenced via washingtonpost. [washingtonpost.com]

Liberals write against voter ID, conservatives write for voter ID. No surprise there.

Add-on to turn broken links into Archive links is very handy. Here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20070616203147/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-votefraud_10tex.ART.State.Edition1.4454f8d.html

Here's an NC article about the complexities of voter rolls, IDs, and immigrants:
http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/state/dmv-search-of-records-turns-up-ineligible-n-c-voters/article_f4ecc2ae-5981-11e4-9f35-0017a43b2370.html

That's interesting about Mexico, though it would be ironic to hold them up as a good example when their people are fleeing. As for "pot-kettle", false equivalence canards got old in the 90s. They don't hold water in most places. Not only have I looked at your sources more closely than you have looked at mine, I have backed-up my concerns; you haven't.

Interesting that you hadn't heard about Mexico's voter ID laws (wait till you hear what they do with illegal immigrants)--it's been a pro-voter ID POV talking point for, I don't know, a decade? Here's an article that goes in more depth (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/aug/26/sid-miller/sid-miller-says-voters-mexico-must-have-tamper-pro/ -- hat tip, it does mention some US statistics you'll enjoy). As with everything else in the Internet echo chamber. Liberals write against showing an ID to vote (but yes to showing an ID

> And we "knew" what Obama would do ?

Well, since you can't be bothered to google it yourself, I did it for you.

He's only broken 22% out of 500+ campaign promises. That is slightly above average for presidents.

Ted Cruz can help you with that.

That isn't the limit of his potential misdeeds, there was a lawsuit about Trump University as well, and many others, so no, you can't say he is clean beyond any question, no.

It's ironic how the red states tend to be the most socialist ones.

What a load of crap.

The data is 12 years old, the definitions of "red" and "blue" states are rather squishy, and the original data doesn't account for the fact that taxes in high-tax blue states (CA, NY, etc) are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

It's more instructive that it fooled you into making the same stupid claim.

It's ironic how the red states tend to be the most socialist ones.

Let me first say that I'm not a fan of Trump. However, it's disingenuous to claim that he "wants to ban Muslims from entering the US". This Politifact article gives some more details.

On the grounds of equal time, Trump ain't exactly being honest.

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

I'm not sure how Politifact decides which statements to rate, but I'm pretty sure Trump has told the truth more than that one time.

I rate their "All True statements involving Donald Trump == 1" to be "pants on fire".

That creates an interesting question assuming you agree with the empirical evidence that Ted Cruz is very dishonest.

I basically see three main possibilities:

1) It's just a coincidence that a very insincere face is coupled with a very insincere man. The researcher suggests this though he's basically just repeating the null hypothesis.

2) Cruz's face behaves the way it does because he's so dishonest. The brain uses different circuits when lying or manipulating (ie fake smile vs genuine smile). If he's spent years being highly manipulative the circuits that control how his face move might work subtly different.

3) Finally he might be lying so much because he realizes he looks dishonest and has come to identify as such (or he's learned people won't believe him regardless).

I suspect it's one of the latter two, our brains don't do perfect heuristics but they're often based on something real.

This reminds me of the study that found hockey players with rounder faces were more aggressive. Of course that doesn't tell you if the aggression and round face were both caused by the same underlying factor (ie testosterone) or if the players were acting more aggressive because they looked more aggressive.

Oh yea...

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Bush's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

1% better than Sanders.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
39% of Christie's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 26% are half true.

The site gives perfectly good ratings to honest republican candidates.

I think most of expect politicians to shade the truth a quarter of the time and lie a quarter of the time while being honest the rest of the time. that's the stardard for politicians.

Cruz and Trump are something exceptional and their low ratings were due to their own statements (which you can check by following the links).
If any would care to show that "pants on fire" lies were actually true or "mostly false statements" were actually true, then I'll cede that politifact is biased.

However, when I've checked it- it has been as reliable as snopes.

Oh yea...

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Bush's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

1% better than Sanders.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
39% of Christie's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 26% are half true.

The site gives perfectly good ratings to honest republican candidates.

I think most of expect politicians to shade the truth a quarter of the time and lie a quarter of the time while being honest the rest of the time. that's the stardard for politicians.

Cruz and Trump are something exceptional and their low ratings were due to their own statements (which you can check by following the links).
If any would care to show that "pants on fire" lies were actually true or "mostly false statements" were actually true, then I'll cede that politifact is biased.

However, when I've checked it- it has been as reliable as snopes.

I wrote this for another forum which was focused on trump. But basically only 21% of Ted Cruz's statements are true or mostly true. He lies twice as often as Clinton and Sanders and almost twice as often as Rubio. He's facile at lying. Lying is a tool in his tool box. It has little to do with his face.

From politifact, the Pulitzer prize winning political fact checking site.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
51% of Clinton's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Sander's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
35% of Rubio's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
21% of Ted Cruz's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 13% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
8% of Trump's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 14% are half true.

yes.. 8% is yoooge.

Trump is saying mostly false statements to outright lies 78% of the time. When caught in a lie, he just lies again.

I was suprised to see Cruz had such a high lie rating given that he's christian and christians are against the lord of lies but his particular sect does approve of lying in the service of the lord so that may be playing a factor here.

Trump is almost a full order of magnitude more dishonest however.

I wrote this for another forum which was focused on trump. But basically only 21% of Ted Cruz's statements are true or mostly true. He lies twice as often as Clinton and Sanders and almost twice as often as Rubio. He's facile at lying. Lying is a tool in his tool box. It has little to do with his face.

From politifact, the Pulitzer prize winning political fact checking site.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
51% of Clinton's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Sander's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
35% of Rubio's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
21% of Ted Cruz's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 13% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
8% of Trump's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 14% are half true.

yes.. 8% is yoooge.

Trump is saying mostly false statements to outright lies 78% of the time. When caught in a lie, he just lies again.

I was suprised to see Cruz had such a high lie rating given that he's christian and christians are against the lord of lies but his particular sect does approve of lying in the service of the lord so that may be playing a factor here.

Trump is almost a full order of magnitude more dishonest however.

I wrote this for another forum which was focused on trump. But basically only 21% of Ted Cruz's statements are true or mostly true. He lies twice as often as Clinton and Sanders and almost twice as often as Rubio. He's facile at lying. Lying is a tool in his tool box. It has little to do with his face.

From politifact, the Pulitzer prize winning political fact checking site.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
51% of Clinton's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Sander's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
35% of Rubio's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
21% of Ted Cruz's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 13% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
8% of Trump's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 14% are half true.

yes.. 8% is yoooge.

Trump is saying mostly false statements to outright lies 78% of the time. When caught in a lie, he just lies again.

I was suprised to see Cruz had such a high lie rating given that he's christian and christians are against the lord of lies but his particular sect does approve of lying in the service of the lord so that may be playing a factor here.

Trump is almost a full order of magnitude more dishonest however.

I wrote this for another forum which was focused on trump. But basically only 21% of Ted Cruz's statements are true or mostly true. He lies twice as often as Clinton and Sanders and almost twice as often as Rubio. He's facile at lying. Lying is a tool in his tool box. It has little to do with his face.

From politifact, the Pulitzer prize winning political fact checking site.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
51% of Clinton's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Sander's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
35% of Rubio's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
21% of Ted Cruz's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 13% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
8% of Trump's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 14% are half true.

yes.. 8% is yoooge.

Trump is saying mostly false statements to outright lies 78% of the time. When caught in a lie, he just lies again.

I was suprised to see Cruz had such a high lie rating given that he's christian and christians are against the lord of lies but his particular sect does approve of lying in the service of the lord so that may be playing a factor here.

Trump is almost a full order of magnitude more dishonest however.

I wrote this for another forum which was focused on trump. But basically only 21% of Ted Cruz's statements are true or mostly true. He lies twice as often as Clinton and Sanders and almost twice as often as Rubio. He's facile at lying. Lying is a tool in his tool box. It has little to do with his face.

From politifact, the Pulitzer prize winning political fact checking site.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
51% of Clinton's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
48% of Sander's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 21% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
35% of Rubio's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 22% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
21% of Ted Cruz's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 13% are half true.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
8% of Trump's statements are all true or mostly true. Another 14% are half true.

yes.. 8% is yoooge.

Trump is saying mostly false statements to outright lies 78% of the time. When caught in a lie, he just lies again.

I was suprised to see Cruz had such a high lie rating given that he's christian and christians are against the lord of lies but his particular sect does approve of lying in the service of the lord so that may be playing a factor here.

Trump is almost a full order of magnitude more dishonest however.

Only if you don't include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as "public assistance programs".

Just FYI, we have a pretty damned good President now who has for five years asked Congress to do basic stuff, like not give tax credits to companies for their exporting American jobs, and instead give those tax credits to companies bringing jobs into the United States.

Holy Christ on a Cracker! Where have you been for the last 8 years?

He flip-flopped on a campaign promise for more campaign money, he ordered the assassination of a US citizen without trial, made the "law" that justified that act secret, ordered his 16-year old son assassinated two weeks later (via drone strike of an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others), told the justice department not to enforce certain laws, made a completely new law by executive order...

And that last bit, the one giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight!

Obama is every inch as bad or worse than George Bush.

I'll never vote Democratic again!

You do realise that most of those 2.5 million illegals already have jobs in the USA and legalising them will (hopefully) make them pay taxes on their income.
Also, for what it is worth, the son was apparently collateral damage (conveniently eating in a cafe where a top Al Qaeda official was eating)...

Kind of like how Obama opposed free trade and said he wanted to make changes to NAFTA, but then once he got in office we can see how that turned out.

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

And don't get me wrong, this isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing. This is an outsider vs Professional-Politician-Insider-who-is-Bought-and-Paid-For-by-the-Banks thing. You can rely on Hillary, who has made tens of millions of dollars at the behest of the banking cabal, rely on her selling out the most American jobs to overseas operations.

Just FYI, we have a pretty damned good President now who has for five years asked Congress to do basic stuff, like not give tax credits to companies for their exporting American jobs, and instead give those tax credits to companies bringing jobs into the United States.

Holy Christ on a Cracker! Where have you been for the last 8 years?

He flip-flopped on a campaign promise for more campaign money, he ordered the assassination of a US citizen without trial, made the "law" that justified that act secret, ordered his 16-year old son assassinated two weeks later (via drone strike of an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others), told the justice department not to enforce certain laws, made a completely new law by executive order...

And that last bit, the one giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight!

Obama is every inch as bad or worse than George Bush.

I'll never vote Democratic again!

At this point... its Hillery VS Trump... there is very little you could say against Trump that doesn't count many times over against Hillary.

According to Politifact, 60% of Trump's claims are false and 1% true (with the remainder somewhere between mostly true and mostly false). Clinton gets 23% false and 41% true.

So, while it is technically true that they both lie and distort, the scale seems pretty important.

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

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

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

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

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

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

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

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

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

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

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

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

And that is his only policy positions?

Btw. It is vague enough that you don't even know what he was talking about.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...
 

Or is this story about people dumb enough to read and react to what this guy says?

Curiously, a lot of hay has been made about Trump's support from uneducated voters, largely from this poll, page 36, which puts percent of supporters with "college degree" at 46%.

The press, of course, is quick to point out that 46% is less than half, so they proclaim far and wide that his supporters are "mostly uneducated".

What the press doesn't note, however, is that 70 % of Americans don't have a degree.

Trumps supporters are more educated than the population average.

Feel free to call us dumb, it helps us change our vote to $your candidate!

(Oh, hey! Want to go out behind the trailer and shoot at beer cans with my .22?)

The difference is that politicians in the past would stretch, spin, and skew the truth, but tried to stop short of outright breaking it. It was like a game. Who could come closest to breaking the truth without actually doing it? If you lost and were caught in a lie, you would retract your statement, make a mea culpa, and then try to find a new way to spin the truth so as not to break it again.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn't shy away from lies and doesn't bother admitting he's wrong when caught making lies. According to Politifact, 20% of his statements are Pants on Fire lies. Another 39% are false. That's 59% of stuff coming out of Trump's mouth that are completely untrue. For comparison, Cruz has an 8% Pants on Fire rating and 31% false for a 39% total. Trump only scores 7% on True or Mostly-True statements. (Cruz is at 21%.)

No other candidate does so poorly on this rating, but Trump simply doesn't care about truth at all. If he says that John Pershing shot 49 Muslim rebels with bullets covered in pig's blood and it kept terrorism at bay for 25 years, he gets his message across. Who cares if the story is a complete fabrication? He got people to cheer him on and that's all that matters to Trump. He claims to be an outsider and not a politician but he's more of a politician than anyone else in the race.

The difference is that politicians in the past would stretch, spin, and skew the truth, but tried to stop short of outright breaking it. It was like a game. Who could come closest to breaking the truth without actually doing it? If you lost and were caught in a lie, you would retract your statement, make a mea culpa, and then try to find a new way to spin the truth so as not to break it again.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn't shy away from lies and doesn't bother admitting he's wrong when caught making lies. According to Politifact, 20% of his statements are Pants on Fire lies. Another 39% are false. That's 59% of stuff coming out of Trump's mouth that are completely untrue. For comparison, Cruz has an 8% Pants on Fire rating and 31% false for a 39% total. Trump only scores 7% on True or Mostly-True statements. (Cruz is at 21%.)

No other candidate does so poorly on this rating, but Trump simply doesn't care about truth at all. If he says that John Pershing shot 49 Muslim rebels with bullets covered in pig's blood and it kept terrorism at bay for 25 years, he gets his message across. Who cares if the story is a complete fabrication? He got people to cheer him on and that's all that matters to Trump. He claims to be an outsider and not a politician but he's more of a politician than anyone else in the race.

Republicans reject it before it even comes out and refuse to read it.

Because "Obama"

Oh, be fair now...

Remember that Obamacare website? How high quality was that?

How about Obamacare itself? Did cementing health insurance companies into federal law fix any problems?

How about closing Gitmo? How did that work out?

Hell, how about his stance on telecom immunity? How's that working out for us?

Or making up new immigration law by executive order?

Or ordering the assassination of a US citizen? (With no trial, and by authority of a secret law.)

Really. If you want to blame gridlock on the merits of the situation, then do so.

Otherwise, to the casual observer it would appear that "because Obama" is a perfectly valid reason to oppose something.

Because, you know, "good and evil".

Okay, let's forgive the Bosnian sniper for the sake of discussion.

I'm sure this was intended as just a cute family fairy tale...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...
As was this...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
And this was just a bit of hyperbole
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And we know she was just kidding with
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I'm sure she just forgot when she said
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/...

I could go on for many more lines, but it's late.

Okay, let's forgive the Bosnian sniper for the sake of discussion.

I'm sure this was intended as just a cute family fairy tale...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...
As was this...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
And this was just a bit of hyperbole
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And we know she was just kidding with
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I'm sure she just forgot when she said
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/...

I could go on for many more lines, but it's late.

I've found that the moment you try to correct one of these stories attributing a false statement to candidate-x, you are immediately labelled as candidate-x fan-boy. And it goes down hill from there.

To be fair, I *am* a Trump fan.

For the past decade or so we (ie - Slashdot readership) have lamented the high-level of corruption in politics, and have identified the root cause as campaign contributions in return for political favours(*). A games-theory analysis shows that any normal political candidate will end up catering to the wishes of corporate interests in order to get elected.

As an example, consider [then] Senator Obama's flip flop on telecom immunity six months before the election, and for which he received generous campaign contributions that allowed him to win the presidency.

We've often wished for a candidate who can avoid the soul-selling and do things in the interests of the people. In this election, we have two: Trump and Sanders.

I'm a fan of both. Having a Trump/Sanders election would be the best thing for this nation, and serve as a wakeup call to the elites.

The people are tired of corruption in politics, and want something in return for their votes.

(*) I'm referring to American politics, but it probably applies in other places, such as Canada, the UK, and Australia.

So he didn't say he would get $2 a gallon gasoline, he just said demand would drop and prices would be lower?

I don't seem to be able to find anything on it. In fact, I seem to be only able to find a politifact article claiming some Florida politician was not telling the truth when he claimed Obama made a statement of $2.50 a gallon gas (which would have been an increase at the time) and attributed that to Newt Gingrich's statements. And this is from around 2008

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

That's because you don't care, and are thus not thinking about it. NJ gets away with it's law, even briefly, and it'd likely spread to NY, California, and such. Thus to be opposed on all fronts.

And I'll note that the reason it's stopping smart guns 'across the country' is that the firearm doesn't have to be sold in NJ at all. As long as it's sold in the USA, it trips the statute.

If they really wanted the law gone they could challenge it in court, I haven't found any evidence that they tried this.

Irrelevant to you because you're not in the market. Relevant to ME because I am, and have knowledge of the issue at hand. Please note that I'm not saying it's not an unsolvable problem. I'm saying that it's no where near solved. Meanwhile we have legislation on the books and the occasional attempt to sell said buggy technology in order to trip the statute.

Or it's a problem that has at least partially been solved.

Believe it or not, but the market is actually mostly allowed - the manufacturer/dealer would just have to deal with:
1. Higher prices for their firearms meaning that they sell less, meaning higher costs per unit sold
2. Not having any police or military forces buying their weapons(they've campaigned hard to be exempt from any such proposals)
3. a probable boycott against their non-smart firearms(if any), as long as the NJ law is in effect.
4. Having the problem that they're pleasing non-customers more than their potential customers. Pleasing you means jack shit. Pleasing me means something to them. I'm opposed to smart guns in the current legal climate, and think lots of work needs to be done technologically.

1. New product category means new customers and taking competitors customers.
2. Why would they stop selling traditional guns?
3/4. So there's a market, except for the fact you make sure there's no market.

According to Polifact, Trump's four bankruptcies were all chapter 11s (restructuring to prevent liquidation). What caught my eye is the manner in which the bankruptcies were cleared - in three of the four, his personal hit was simply loss of shares in that company (he had to sell a yacht and airline as part of the '91 Trump Taj Mahal deal).

To my mind, that's *awfully* close to walking away scott-free - giving up shares in a failing business isn't really losing money IMO. And in some of the deals he was still left in charge or received licensing fees for use of his name afterwards. So, I think Trump is right in that it was a smart move... for him. He starts up these businesses, and if it makes money he owns a majority and cashes in. The four times it bombed out, he seems to be largely able to walk away and let someone else clean up the mess.

Makes him a smart businessman, but that's not exactly a skillset I'd like to see in a political leader.

Indeed. The National Guard can, by law, be DRAFTED by the US military.

good times, good times

Can put an end to all homelessness and hunger in the US pretty much right now. Nobody cares.

When you add up the costs of homeless shelters, police, damage, emergency rooms(due to illness caused/made worse by being without shelter), jail space, court costs, etc... Each homeless person costs roughly $40k/year. Between private parties, city, state, and federal governments.

Homeless people are expensive. It's actually cheaper to spend the $10k-20k to put them up in permanent housing, without requiring things like 'you have to pass a drug test first!' Living on the street sucks. Of course they're going to keep using drugs until they're off them!

Yes, we can solve homelessness NOW, and it wouldn't even cost us a cent. As a practical minarchist, I support that move.

And, if it proves profitable, the government will recover its losses from the bailout. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

Yeah, I'm sure it is left-wing bias that the media hasn't covered the evidence for his assertions. It isn't that the assertions are simply false, like his repeated false claim about thousands of New Jersey Muslims cheering on 9/11 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/, his repeated claim that Mexico is deliberately sending criminals to the US http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/, or simply stating demonstrably made up statistics http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/.

And yes, he has made blanket statements. Look at for example his comment from his announcement speech where he said:

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. And some, I assume, are good people.

This wasn't a claim that most Mexican immigrants are good with a few bad apples. This was a statement that they are bad, except possibly "some" who might be good that he has to "assume" exist. This is about as blanket as one can get without using a universal quantifier. Similar remarks apply to his statements about Muslims and POWs (who are apparently losers for being captured while serving their country).

Yeah, I'm sure it is left-wing bias that the media hasn't covered the evidence for his assertions. It isn't that the assertions are simply false, like his repeated false claim about thousands of New Jersey Muslims cheering on 9/11 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/, his repeated claim that Mexico is deliberately sending criminals to the US http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/, or simply stating demonstrably made up statistics http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/.

And yes, he has made blanket statements. Look at for example his comment from his announcement speech where he said:

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. And some, I assume, are good people.

This wasn't a claim that most Mexican immigrants are good with a few bad apples. This was a statement that they are bad, except possibly "some" who might be good that he has to "assume" exist. This is about as blanket as one can get without using a universal quantifier. Similar remarks apply to his statements about Muslims and POWs (who are apparently losers for being captured while serving their country).

Yeah, I'm sure it is left-wing bias that the media hasn't covered the evidence for his assertions. It isn't that the assertions are simply false, like his repeated false claim about thousands of New Jersey Muslims cheering on 9/11 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/, his repeated claim that Mexico is deliberately sending criminals to the US http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/, or simply stating demonstrably made up statistics http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/.

And yes, he has made blanket statements. Look at for example his comment from his announcement speech where he said:

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. And some, I assume, are good people.

This wasn't a claim that most Mexican immigrants are good with a few bad apples. This was a statement that they are bad, except possibly "some" who might be good that he has to "assume" exist. This is about as blanket as one can get without using a universal quantifier. Similar remarks apply to his statements about Muslims and POWs (who are apparently losers for being captured while serving their country).

Everyone has mistatements about them in the media. The important thing in this case is that even when you put things he says in complete context they are still awful or based on factually incorrect claims. There's a reason that PolitiFact labeled Trump's entire set of falsehoods their Lie of the Year , never before has someone managed to have all three top spots in the running for lie of the year. Of course, Trump and others response that this was left-wing bias is also false, as one can see from the fact that the previous year's Lie of the Year was a specific statement by Obama http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/. Trump really is that bad on basic facts even *before* one talks about the morality or ethics of any of his ideas.

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

Perhaps you should try reading more than CNN or MSNBC? There has been many emails that have been subsequently classified, as well as many emails that contained information that other agencies have indicated were marked as classified at some point. It isn't as cut and dried as "she did nothing wrong". I am glad that you have such insight into all of this that you can claim to know for fact that she did nothing illegal, however even the article I link here states this:

This is not to say Clinton’s email setup was allowed or appropriate -- for example, it skirted open records laws and presents challenges to archivists. And subsequent investigations may yield surprises or other unexpected evidence. But because of the way classification works and because of the incomplete record of her emails, we continue to reserve judgment.

Well yes terrorist kill people, but it is only a small amount, for example 32533 people in the US committed suicide in the US in 2005 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... ) and from http://www.politifact.com/trut... the people killed in the last decade from terrorism is 24. That is 1,355,400% more! Being insulting to the people around you is more genuinely dangerous than these sites.

I think calling it Genuinely dangerous, is a bit of a stretch. What is genuinely dangerous is jailing people because they have a different view than you. Donald trumps speeches are probably doing more to incite hate of the US by Muslims, than any terrorist organization could hope to achieve. If he gets elected he will be in charge of the most powerful military in the world. But he has a right to say it, no matter how stupid they may be. I also have the right to say he is a hateful, arrogant moron.

I also find it hard to believe that these educated people cannot seem place themselves in the opposing sides point of view. ISIS allow probably state that the American point of view is genuinely dangerous, and should ban having access to those ideas, (I don't know for sure, I might get arrested for viewing those types of web sites)

No, not the same thing, at all.
Again with the ignorance.

Carter acted against a nationality, not a religion. I know nuance is hard for people like you to comprehend, but try, just this once. There is a vast gulf of difference between excluding people (with humanitarian exceptions) who owe allegiance to a country we were at war with in all but name, and excluding people (without exception) because of religion.

Carter's actions were the actions of a POTUS employing diplomatic pressure upon a country and its citizens in response to actions that country had taken against the US and its citizens, in particular our citizens that were being held hostage.

Trump is nothing like Carter, and his proposal is in no way comparable to Carter's actions, unless you're completely ignorant, but then that's to be expected with you.

http://www.politifact.com/geor...

Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better.

If only there was a group who takes the time to measure how full of shit each politician is. Oh wait, there is. Others have even taken time to aggregate the claims of each major 2016 presidential nominee (and some past ones).

On one end you have Ben Carson and Donald Trump whose claims are 85% / 76% mostly false or worse respectively, and on the other you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who come it at 28% mostly false or worse. Not to say all GOP are that bad, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio coming in at 32% and 40% respectively.

Guys like Trump prey on people who hold the false belief that all politicians lie equally. Everyone lies, but there is a big difference between people who may stretch the truth and people who will flat out say anything.

It's fascinating to observe -- this must be what it was like in the early 30's in Germany, watching the fascists rise to power.

I'm waiting for him to talk about "solutions" to the "Muslim problem" -- final ones, even.

Ummm, errr, ...he's about 90% of the way there already.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

About the only thing he hasn't yet called for is to round them up into concentration camps and then...well...I'm sure you know the rest. It is truly frightening to see how high this man is in polling. What the hell happened to my country?