Slashdot Mirror

Ah, another conservative rant, devoid of reality, devoid of substance, and contrary to what actually happened, which is very popular with the lie-telling set.

In reality, Davis was recalled because of his mishandling of the power crisis, which was consistently and repetitively blamed on liberals, leftists, and environmentalists, but turned out to be the machinations of a company in Houston, Texas. They're the ones who profited off inflicting chaos in California.

Of course, even despite this unearned victory, the Republicans spent the next few years frittering away in California, which was pretty bad for them once the Citizens decided they'd take control of the redistricting process, and crippling when the non-partisan jungle primary was implemented.

But now, you continue to lie about the driver's licenses letting illegals vote, you foment corrupt campaign contributions yourself, and freak out over law protecting victims of sex trafficing, by acting as if it legalized child prostitution.

I'm sorry s.petry, but you shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

But gosh, I'm sure you know all this, you're just too afraid to say it.

Republicans were pushing for more infrastructure spending in the bill.

I can't help but wonder if the approximately five trillion dollars we completely wasted in attacking Iraq and Afghanistan might have been enough to fix a bridge or two...

As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.

An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.

As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.

He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:

"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."

That's from the New York fucking Times, back before they completely went anti-Trump apeshit.

As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.

Because the mainstream clearly had a bias against Trump, and became "horrific shits" themselves.

As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.

A neutral and non-screechy article on the matter provides a different perspective.

As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.

Wah, wah. He's not Obama and he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.

Yeah, he fucked up.

And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...

Sounds like you're talking about it. Boo hoo, he's mean on Twitter, just like he was during the campaign.

Some other things he's done:
- Put the focus back on American jobs.
- Put a spotlight on government waste via over-priced mega projects.
- Met with foreign leaders.
- Ramped up deportation of illegal immigrants.
- Set goals for reducing regulations and their costs.
- Nominated a Supreme Court justice.

Remember, none of the materials on the Clinton server were marked classified at the time they landed there, only in retrospect were any of them deemed classified at the lowest level.

That's not true; she got materials that were marked classified, she got stuff that was Top Secret at the time of sending (even if it wasn't marked properly, she should have known it was as part of her duties), and only some of the stuff was retroactively classified.

Certainly, some of it is political grandstanding, but not all.

The claim isn't that there are no wars, but that there have been few large scale wars. In general, even as the population has gone up, the total number of war casualties has been low, and as a percentage basis, the fraction of people dying in war has gone down. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/. And yes, the claim isn't that there have been no annexations, and yes, every one of those is problematic. The particular problem here is the revanchist aspect- the justifying of annexation by claims that territory was historically one's own or has people in one's own ethnic group, which only applies to some of those. Note by the way that for multiple of your examples, the country attempting annexation doesn't currently have control. For example, East Timor is independent.

If you really believe that, then you have no idea how the economy works.

1: It COSTS money to round up those illegal immigrants. So your taxes will go up in some ways. (data point: http://www.newsweek.com/how-mu...)

2: Those illegal immigrants most of who are working and actually contributing to society. (in the form of taxes and general purchasing) they may be illegal but they are give far more than they take). - (data point: http://www.politifact.com/pund...)

3: The places that employed them were doing so not out of the goodness of their heart, but cheap labour, which means they will now have to pay standard wages.. which means, costs where they were working will go up, which WILL be passed on to you the consumer. (ie: Post Tax money from you)

4: A tourist, in general, is a net positive gain for a country, ie: someone that spends money, but consumes so little in services that they are net positive for a country (its a reason why lots of countries with little industry go to tourism, as its a vehicle for revenue and requires relatively little investment.

So 3000 per year for one family may not sound like a lot, but lets assume most spend half that, and in 2015 there were 38 Million visitors to the US.. (so lets quarter that for families (figuring a typical house of 4) or about 9.5 million families visit. Now lets assume about half of them are business travelers (and many companies are looking to stop sending bodies to the US and go virtual) so we have 4.75 tourist families.. now lets assume half them are skipping the US (which most I know are.. I know personally the CEOs the top travel agencies in the Europe (western) and Asia (east) and they are have noticed that since Trump's election, over 20% of the reservations they had for families that were coming to the US have cancelled or changed their plans to other places). We have no stats on personally booked travel and other travel agencies, but if their numbers are similar, then a 50% reduction is not far off, which puts us at about 2.35 Million familes that won't visit. Which means a reduction of 3,562,500,000 dollars (3.5 Trillion dollars) annually gone from businesses (some of which depend on tourists), which means those businesses will reduce staff (ie: more people looking for work).

Add that to the other things going on...

Well, its not good.

He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://people.com/politics/don...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo...

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Still feeding the fake news and alternative facts I see. Sorry, you can't rewrite history. If you voted for President Pedophile, you voted for someone who lies and has no problem breaking the law, and if you did it because he made up a claim that his opponent broke the law all the worse. Kelly-Anne Conway just broke the law on Fox News last night by advertising for Ivanka Trump, but I don't see Republicans punishing her either. Most federal employees in the past get suspended or fired for what she did last night, but President Pedophile and Republican controlled congress are the only ones with the ability to punish her, and I don't see either doing anything. President Pedophile actually defended her after she broke the law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

https://www.bloomberg.com/poli...

The Clinton e-mails are one of the biggest lies Republicans, Breitbart, and Fox News told. Nothing was really deleted. Hillary first sent one copy of the hard drives to a law office and had them sort between all the personal stuff and professional stuff. They "deleted" the personal stuff off that copy of the data before handing it to the FBI. The FBI said that wasn't sufficient and issued a subpoena for all the data including the personal data. Then she handed a copy of all the data including the personal stuff. Once requested, the FBI got everything. The quote from the FBI was about "deleted" e-mails was that there were about a dozen business e-mails that hadn't been included with the first set of business e-mails handed over. There wasn't any crime, because nothing was actually deleted. The FBI also decided that the missing ("deleted") e-mails was not criminal because there was no evidence that it was done intentionally and there was nothing incriminating in them (incorrectly sorting 0.1% of the e-mails was probably accidental). It's not like we are talking about paper copies where there is only one copy of the papers and she shredded them. There were multiple copies of the data on different hard drives and backups.

Rice had her aides use personal e-mail accounts to send e-mails for her. Powell used a private e-mail account (believed to be AOL) for his secretary of state e-mails. Republicans only had a problem with Clinton doing the same thing Republicans had done. They also leave out that she requested a secure e-mail option from the NSA twice and was rejected; the NSA told her to send e-mails from her office computer when she spent most of her job traveling. She was just trying to do her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

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

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

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

Obama quote is lacking context and absolutely does not mean he had been planning on bankrupting the industry, it's talking about building new coal plants with older technology (source and write-up here. It certainly isn't a suggestion that Obama plans to "bankrupt" the coal industry, simply to require new plants be built using modern, more efficient, technologies.

The Clinton quote is largely correct for context, though it should be pointed out it was in a larger discussion about improving conditions for blue collar workers by replacing coal jobs with renewable energy jobs.

> first it get underfunded for years

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

via

https://www.google.com/search?...

It looks like you have trouble ascertaining what is and is not sarcasm. I was not meaning that as a literal statement of which party Trump was in, but that he was a member of the DNC repeatedly, and the only reason many seem to be against things he does is because he was elected from the RNC, not because they have put the least amount of thought into anything he does or says. This is specifically evidenced by the conversation above, which conveniently gives Obama a pass for doing the exact same thing, while demonizing Trump for doing it.

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

Yes, I am aware that Trump was not a Democrat at the time, but he actually could have been an independent at the time, depending on when the statement was made.

People assume all politicians are lying all the time anyway, so just say anything because people care about the message, not if it is true or not.

No, people assume politicians that oppose their ideology are lying all the time. They tend to assume their guy is "a straight talker" or some other baloney. Exhibit A is the irrational believe on our political right that Hillary Clinton is some sort of pathological liar and crook. This in spite the the actual objective evidence that she is not at all outside the range of normal for a high profile politician. In actuality she is relatively honest among that crowd. (a low bar I know) The same people seem to believe that Trump is telling the truth despite objective evidence that he lies FAR more often.

Even so, it doesn't actually seem to have damaged Trump very much.

That's just because the people he was running against weren't very well liked either. Not one of the Republican candidates (including Trump) was a serious statesman with real gravitas. Easy targets for a guy who has made his life's work self promotion. Hillary Clinton for whatever reason just isn't very charismatic to a big portion of the population - and even the she actually won the popular vote.

(Do you realize that only once since 1988 has a Republican candidate actually won the popular vote? That's 6 of the last 7 elections. Talk about evidence of a screwed up election system...)

> Clinton did say that she would be putting coal companies out of business

No, that's what the alt-newsphere claimed she said. What she actually said was all the rich people are fucking you guys, and I'm not going to lie about that. But I will help you to get out from under their thumbs and have a better future.

You were lied to, plain and simple. Watch now as you cling to those lies in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.

In context: Hillary Clinton’s comments about coal jobs

Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

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.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

Trump campaigned keeping people employed in oil, coal and gas. Clinton did say that she would be putting coal companies out of business, as a result of moving toward renewable energy sources. The article is trying to saying there are more jobs in renewable energy already , which is not true. http://www.politifact.com/trut...
So the article is trying to say Clinton was right, Trump was wrong. Aka SJW liberal article.

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately.

I know this is going to be a little difficult for you to get, but Bush 43 was already on the way out and was working with the incoming president.

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

"The Bush Administration provided short-term bridge loans," Rubenstein said. "That allowed the Obama Administration to take a couple of months to assess the situation."

Now how about you stop following me around

I think you need to see a shrink about your paranoia.

Yes, yes. The association of nuclear scientist and everyone with a rational mind who hasn't given up on real facts instead of "alternative facts" is elitist and left wing biased. The entire world has lost its way and only American Conservatism remains on the path of truth and honesty.

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

How nice of you to bring that site up. Lets compare Obamas record
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

With that of Trump so far:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Obama: 48% True or Mostly True vs 16% for Trump
Obama: 26% Mostly False or worse, vs 70% for Trump

How nice of you to bring that site up. Lets compare Obamas record
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

With that of Trump so far:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Obama: 48% True or Mostly True vs 16% for Trump
Obama: 26% Mostly False or worse, vs 70% for Trump

Let's start here.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

BTW... Who said anything about administration?

For one... There is no such thing as "Trump administration" yet. And clearly, there won't be one for quite some time.
Which is what happens when you hire a lazy, lying, incompetent bum prone to litigation to work for you.

And no one said it was "the administration" that's being a "liar and a sociopath" - it's Trump and the people he is picking who are liars, sociopaths and idiots.
Here, again, for those with reading issues.

They are lying cause their boss, who has handpicked them, is a liar and a sociopath.
A liar and a sociopath who has handpicked people who don't mind being told lies nor do they mind telling lies to reach their goal.
They are lying cause they are liars and sociopaths. Also... idiots who don't mind being lied to.

Also, tu quoque is a fallacy - not an argument.
Particularly when you reply to a "He's a lying sociopath and so are the people he's picking" carpet bombing with a fizzling firecracker like "Well... like the previous administration NEVER lied".
Not only are you neck deep in the fallacy septic tank, you're diving deeper by emphasizing your own attempt at false equivalence.

Which is pathetic, I know, but what CAN you do?
You can't just pick ANY random statement by ANY previous president and say "See? That's a lie." - at least 50% of those won't be lies.
Unlike with Trump, with whom telling truth happens to be more of a statistical error than accident.

Just get over it already. Trump won. Enjoy!

The pay the US nearly $900 million annually for $28k troops. http://www.politifact.com/trut... They pay something like 95% of what it costs us to have a presence there, and the benefits to the US are numerous.

When Obama was campaigning in '07 he said he would end the spying on U.S. citizens. And have the most transparent government ever. And close Gitmo.

Two things there:

(1) Congress prevented him.

(2) Candidate Obama, once elected, adapted to fit the political reality. Candidate Trump seems so far to keep wanting to distort reality to conform to his fragile ego.

About 6 months prior to Obama's first term election, he completely flip-flopped on telecom immunity.

As a result, Obama received greater telecom campaign donations, which helped him spend more money on his campaign.

That's an example of a politician "adapting to fit political reality", and the political climate was so corrupt that your candidate felt comfortable betraying a promise several months before the election!

Framing "betraying campaign promises" as "adapting to fit the political reality" makes it seem almost... noble.

And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.

Obama is widely known for both compromising and evolving.

I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.

Good for him. Intransigence is exactly what is appropriate at this time, since it was EXACTLY what the GOP did in 2008.

Force them to struggle for everything, and let them go off on a rocker.

Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.

That's because the left already has those better ideas and policies, with much better arguments, and does things that the voters really want, and makes the country better, but through hook and crook, the GOP has sneaked its way into power through illegitimate means, therefore, they must be opposed.

You see, that's because the left HAS acted nobly, instead of doing the right thing, which would be to execute the traitorous and criminal Republicans as they deserve. The Right-Wing is one step away from Civil War, and you can bet if Trump thinks he can, he'll reject his rejection in the next election.

He'll lose, but he's dumb enough to try.

The fundamental difference between the left and the right, through the campaign and after, is that the right has tried to make themselves the better option, while the left tried to make the *other side* the worse option.

No, it's the right that has done its own job of making itself the worst option. They've opposed compromise, they've demanded obedience, they've rejected tolerance. See their stance on same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and more. See Judge Roy Moore. See Donald Trump. See HB 4. See Indiana. See Kansas.

Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better". Clinton's speeches, delivered by others during campaign rallies, were essentially throwing insults at the other side.

Wait, a second, you're delusional enough to believe the belittler-in-chief wasn't throwing insults continuously?

Why? Or are we supposed to be dumb, do you think we're dumb, Okian Warrior? He made up insults about Cruz and Rubio, let alone Clinton and Obama.

He spent six years birthering and mongering himself.

I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is. Their actions are not turning minds and swaying the voters they will need if they want to win future elections.

3 million voters more for Hillary than Trump. Only chance gave him the win. And the illegal manipulations in Wisconsin and Michigan by GOP governments. Oh sure, he wants to believe he won in a landslide, but he also wants us to believe his inauguration was well-attended. You know what's got people out? The protest against him. Still ongoing.

That should tell even a fraudulent idiot such as yourself something. Trump is DEAD in the water. He's going to be lucky if the CIA doesn't poison him just to get him out of the way.

I have no idea how they can continue with this ludicrous behaviour, but I'm sure the right will continue to laugh at them while they do it.

The right's going to laugh its way into a revolution fomented by its own incompetence. They already fucked up badly in North Carolina, the governor there now has a good way to blister them down,

-I don't care what you believe.

-Citation provided.
-since race is an artificial construct anyway, it's as good a word as any to describe bigotry against a distinct cultural ethnic group a more concise term is coined
-debatable; migration rights are largely seen as a basic human right. and they still have rights under the constitution, particularly in the area of due process, the constitution being a document that describes not just the relation between the government and citizen, but more accurately the government and any person subject to its authority.

-torture is a war crime
-so is retaliatory executions, even the uber-conservative and generally delusional Washington times agrees
-so is the targeting of families

-your views on women, looks, and what constitutes hypocrisy don't even merit a response. but I will say, you should start by looking up the definition of hypocrisy

-citation already provided

-Yes he is, though I can see how its hard for you to see, when you willfully ignore and dismiss everything he's done, as you have in the above mentioned topics.

So how many Republicans in power actually said he wasn't a legitimate president?

Let's see, Try here. That's a lot of gabbling, isn't it? At best, you have them pandering to the Birthers, which is shameful on its own, perhaps more so.

That's just in Congress, doesn't count Sheriff Arpaio or Donald Trump.

You kinda lose on the Birther High Ground with Donald Trump there.

How many made it a point to boycott his inauguration?

I dunno, but at least one was asinine at a State of the Union. Plenty of incivility from the GOP at that.

And face it, Scalia had been running his mouth off for a while too. And Alito got so hysterical he totally had a bitchfest over a majority opinion that he joined a dissent just to whine.

You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.

Nope, it's forwards, the reality.

Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.

Trump appears. That's the correct choice of words. He appears. Actually is.

Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.

You mean he randomly babbled a pointless bit of words that mean nothing, and you bought it.

He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.

You mean he's met with several companies and offered to hand them taxpayer dollars if they pretend to have work in the country.

He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.

You mean he randomly spouted his mouth off (again, this is a habit of his), and complained about something that wasn't even real.

It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people.

Based on what? His complete lack of authenticity and genuineness in his speeches and mannerisms?

He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.

When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".

Give him a chance.

He might actually make things better.

Nope. He has to change. Stop blathering, stop lambasting, stop acting like a tantrum toddler.

You know, start growing up and acting adult. Not being an asshole.

If Clinton had won, you would be fighting in Trump's revolutionary army and decrying the continued Democratic tyranny. Which ok, would amount to you trolling on the Internet some more, so no, we would be having this discussion, and you'd be doing the same things as you are now.

Funny. Because that sure didn't happen when Obama won, but the left were right there back when Bush Jr., was elected for a second term screaming that they should violently oppose him.

Nope, it's confirmed that there were internet trolls then. Some continue to this day.

2012 also had plenty. Including a special one you may know.

And gee, look again...it's the left doing exactly the same thing.

Yes, yes, pity you, because the Left surely is the one making you the victim, you internet troll you. Poor you. Why do you lie? Do you think everybody else is too dumb to spot your bullshit?

When Trump himself jumped into it with vigor, that's a losing game.

But oh boy, let's look at Obama's decisions shall we? A head of the DoJ that refuses to enforce immigration law, and is now in the running to defend criminal illegals. Very progressive, much law and order!

Even Donald Trump admitted that Obama had deported millions. Strangely he had no problem lying about it otherwise. Just like you.

Couldn't Trump find a non-racist attorney general candidate? Couldn't Trump find a candidate for secretary of state who knew what a war crime was? Couldn't Trump find a way to not create more conflicts of interest?

You mean the joke? Did you actually read/watch what he said. I guess not, that's what happens when you let the media lie to you. Yep, he's so racist he's prosecuted KKK members.

Oh goodness, he's not so stupid he can claim that the KKK is a perfectly normal civil organization. But he's stupid enough to crack jokes about them. Well, that's not a point in his favor, nor is his position on marijuana, which remains opposed to legalization. Nor the failure to list his failed judicial nomination. Or the other things he mysteriously left out.

But I guess it's too bad there's plenty of other things to know about Jeff Sessions.

Really, couldn't Trump find ANYBODY else?

Now, let's move on to that "war crime" bit. Smart move. You know why?

Because you aren't thinking, and believe being stupid enough not to condemn actual war crimes because of some carefully inculcated desire to be legally scot-free equivocator is a good thing?

It's dumb. Dumb-ass stupid shit that would get you worked up into a frenzy if it were the other side saying it, but when it's yours, well, you just think it's the greatest thing ever.

Because if he didn't answer the way he did, he would have let every nut with an axe to grind go after the government.

They already do. What's your point? That we should keep doing the things that are fucking dumb?

Starting right at the top with the previous Obama ad

28.8 rate of vegetarianism then? I don't think you realize the remainder population in India that consumes meat is therefore about twice the population of the US. Now couple that with the fact that the country is maybe half the size of the US and you can be assured that they are pumping those animals up with anything that will make them grow faster (to make up for lack of grazing space) at rate minimum to that of America's worst offenders.

With that said a bit less than 80% of all antibiotics sold in this country are sold to the meat industry. http://www.politifact.com/trut... (An odd source, yes but it was easy and they did their research well enough for my standards)

Given these facts I dont see how you can come to your conclusion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]

That's an odd report for so many reasons. NC really brought themselves into the future, done by the Republicans. Research triangle, etc. They rival sunnyvale. Now all kinds of foreigners are being brought in, it's shifting the demographics so it'll probably go blue soon. Funny how they belly ache. Maryland is an example of a blue state and they have all those things. Gerrymandering, spending the state into bankruptcy,etc. Then elect a Republican governor to bail them out, like right now. Very cut throat in that state, like NY state. They even put my MD lawyer in jail, even though he's very much for the Democrats and it was over BS. One line in a ledger. He deposited money into the wrong account by mistake. That is all they could find. All this because he disagreed with them, once. Man, they stripped him like piranha after a cow. Even though he helped them a great deal over the years. Nothing I or anyone else could do about it. He even had former governors testifying on his behalf. None of that mattered. NC isn't really an example as the report says. They're trying to stop the new governor from trashing the state. Just like you'd probably want to keep a thief out of your house. They don't know it's a losing battle. The report is like I said - very odd. Like a petulant child that didn't get their way or something? Could be I suppose.

The Republicans have been gunning for her (Hillary) for decades and have yet to make a single thing stick. There's hardly another politician who has had such intense scrutiny. And yet, still nothing. Mr Trump on the other hand isn't even trying to hide his corruption, but for some reason a lot of people don't care nearly so much if he does it.

Gunning for? More like they've got. They took both of their law licenses years ago. They've had all kinds of trouble over the years. If the Justice Dept would have issued paperwork like they were supposed to, she'd be in jail right now. I have a friend that studied her. Man, study her for a while. You'd never believe it if I told you here. As for Trump, NY State has been "gunning" after him for decades. Democrats don't like success. They've even tried to set him up. No, he's not corrupt. If he were there is no doubt they would have got him. I understand NY State may get Hillary. She's violated state law it seems. Stay tuned, could get interesting.

Oldest what? Democracy? Nope. Republic? Nope. Country? Nope. Government? Nope. The US may be many things, but oldest anything it is not.

Why don't you think the US is the oldest? Lefty propaganda maybe?
Oldest Democracy, Republic and Government (YES) - http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

(being called a liberal) It's more of a compliment than an accusation.

You're kidding. It's like being called a thief, liar, bigot, despot. Good case in point right now - you must make our gay cake or we'll sue you out of business because your religion, anything you say - fuck you. Yet people who want to go to Washington for Trump's inauguration - now they're bullying people into not participating. Even after a 16 year old singer named Jackie Evancho, who even has a trans sister. That's what libs are all about, controlling everyone else into their warped world. Screw everything else - my point on murdering civil discourse. Entertainers, artists, sports people - stay out of politics. (Republicans,Democrats) buy (theater tickets, shoes, art, etc) too. It's a gig. STFU. If they don't want to do it, fine. The Republicans aren't like Democrats and won't make them do what they don't want to do.

The crazy left has hijacked the Democratic party and murdered civil discourse.

That sounds much more like a description of the right and

Except that you're completely false. Obama kept a lot of promises, had to compromise on a lot of others and yeah, missed several too.

Obama absolutely kept a lot of promises though. Many that ended up broken due to Republican obstruction. Obama's big weakness was caving to Republican demands even when he didn't need to.

World's largest polluter in what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

According to this, China is the top of the pile for CO2. The US environmental regulations have caused us to have very clean air and water, where China has no regulation and pollutes their land air and water to the point where people are dying from it. But I guess you don't care about facts and figures and work more off your gut?

Here's another article about it:

http://www.activesustainabilit...

You don't see people walking around with dust masks on in the US, but I am sure you already knew that.

For fine particulates, China is still pretty bad, though Saudi Arabia surpasses them there. Likely it is due to the desert there though.

https://qz.com/794542/air-poll...

Most polluted cities, US not even on the list anywhere:

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

As far as disproportionate, not really. VW has more diesels on the roads in the US than any other car manufacturer. The impact is more for this issue than other diesel manufacturers who were also fined steeply. Considering the EU feels it can fine Apple for paying the taxes they owe in Ireland, I am not sure how you think this fine is somehow disproportionate.

Womble, we know that the fetus is viable on it's own after 20 weeks of gestation, so at that point, from a scientific standpoint the only difference between a fetus and a baby is location of residence and method of getting nutrients. Further, we have scientifically advanced our definition of human life (and human death) as the presence of lack of brain activity. For the fetus, this begins at around 6 weeks. Thus, from our current understanding and legal definition of human life, which we apply across the board to all human beings (except for the fetus, due to a mistake by 7 attorneys in black robes 43 years ago), human life begins at around 6 weeks after conception, and a fetus is certainly a human being at 20 weeks.

As you can tell I have a strong pro-life position, and I have thoroughly researched the issue as I personally had to make a choice on the issue of one life or another. 99% of pro-life advocates believe in exceptions for abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, where abortion is a sad but necessary procedure. We do not agree that abortion for the convenience of the mother or father is acceptable. Carrying to term and childbirth are difficult consequences for irresponsible unprotected sex, but adoption is a far better option for the mental and physical health of everyone involved over 99% of the time.

Just 2.8% of women surveyed claimed that their abortion was over concerns for maternal health in the one survey that is available on the subject. The actual stats are un-knowable because no solid studies have been performed thanks to the pro-abortion lobbies who want to obfuscate the issue. We do know that maternal childbirth related deaths in the US are at 0.0185% vs Brazil at 0.055% which has strict anti-abortion laws. Assuming all the difference has nothing to do with quality of health care or delivery facilities (which it doesn't), we are talking about a 0.037% difference in maternal childbirth mortality rates. You and I think nothing of jumping in a car where your risk of dying over three years of driving is 0.033% or about the delta in risk rates. The odds of dying from a legal abortion are higher but comparable with any invasive medical procedure. Again, impossible to find exact stats due to obfuscation at the highest levels. These numbers for medically necessary abortions hardly scratch the surface on the 54,000,000 abortions since Roe v Wade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...
http://www.politifact.com/new-...
http://riskcalculator.facs.org...

The fact that you have to attack a person's religious beliefs instead of simply using facts like I have above shows just how weak your pro-abortion position is. Science since 1973 continues to show that the practice of abortion on demand is taking the life of another human being. There is a reason that no federal law has ever been passed making abortion legal, and that is that anyone who spends time actually digging into the facts (or who becomes pregnant and watches the ultrasound) can conclude that a fetus is a human life. In 100 years, society will look back at abortion in much the same way we look back at slavery. Amazed and disgusted that a civilized society could condone the savage abuse of a innocent, defenseless portion of the population for convenience.

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pr...

And you should also admit that Trump is largely the source of the "hire local" climate, he's caused companies to rethink their outsourcing plans, especially in light of the alternative candidate who said explicitly that she wants completely open borders for job seekers.

Nope. That's been something proclaimed for YEARS. It's been a scam.

So is Trump's "Carrier deal" and "Ford and he lied about "Boeing too.

Durp, durp, durp. You lie about Hillary Clinton as well. Just like Your Orange God

Who also made up a story about bidding on drugs. LOL. Yeah, let's see him change the Republican's opposition to the reform proposed by Democrats for decades. He'll either come up with a way to screw us, or fail and claim he somehow saved us anyway.

But none of that matters. I don't think many people really care who takes the credit.

Is it important to you?

Help me out here.

Why should credit even matter?

Ask your good buddy, Donald J. Trump, who puts his name on everything.

Sorry, but some of us know that Donald only wants CREDIT for success, he doesn't even care if the job gets done.

Maybe you like his over-the-top bombastic style of self-aggrandizement, maybe you think his much vaunted narcissism is a matter of virtue, but you're the one who has to look at what you've embraced.

With open eyes. He's already said he likes being liked. He can't see a problem in that. He'll be a suck-up to anybody who offers him praise.

And if you dare to criticize or challenge him, he'll throw a tantrum.

You can decide to personally accept the scientific community's consensus...

By the way, that whole "97% consensus" thing is pure organic fertilizer.

Here's a Wall Street Journal piece on that falsehood. Of course the WSJ is a well-known alt-right mouthpiece (snort). http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

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

So not even your claims of consensus hold up to scrutiny.

You really should quit while you're behind rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper.

Liberal Politifact says Hillary Clinton was SOS when "red line" policy was adopted. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Your basically saying oh since she quit before Assad crossed the line, nothing is her fault.

The "Don't be a little bitch." rule. You can QQ all you want, but you should expect others to tell you to STFU when you do because everyone's sick of hearing it.

Translation: I can't stand hearing what you're saying, so I'm going to whine and pout, and cry a bunch of crocodile tears and yell at others to shut up because of my own weakness.

See how that works? You try to silence others, you just prove them right to speak out against you. But we get it, you supported a petulant child, and want to act like a toddler yourself, but that only makes other people recognize how full of bullshit you are.

Of course, it doesn't help you that false claims like "massive landslide" and "political mandate" abound.

That's right, so obsessed with appearances, they claim, falsely, to be a dramatic winner, when the reality is starkly different.

No, I think we'll stick with the mockery. It's what you deserve. You've earned it, and will keep earning it. Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, he can't even admit it, but has to make up stories about illegal voters.

Which makes it even more relevant.

That gets under your skin, I suspect.

Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades. But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information?

Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. But publishing it now helps support the false narrative that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers, and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now.

Further reading here and here.

What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January 20?

Not as far as I can tell. It seems like his worst sin is declining to rule it out. There is a lot to criticize him over, but it seems to me this particular issue is a creation of his opponents.

he advocated, very loudly and on tape, for just such a thing. Politifact has sources that can be followed, and most of them are Trump himself.

Jesus, the things that get modded up on /. these days...

No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.

I don't know if it's part of the fake news so much has his own inability to communicate effectively. This article seems to provide a pretty unbiased perspective on the topic. He didn't reject the concept of a Muslim registry for a few days. However, he never flatly stated he wanted one either. He either wanted one, and changed his mind, or he didn't understand the questions being asked.

> No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process.

The two are not mutually exclusive. He's been deliberately vague, letting people read whatever they want into what he says. That's standard for Trump who likes to be on all sides of an issue so he can always claim to have been on the "right" side when it is politically expedient for him. And his worshippers think he's a staight-talker!

Here he is, when given a chance to make it crystal clear that he was not pushing a registry of all muslims.

George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

"No, not at all,"

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

Here's the citation: http://www.politifact.com/cali... Yes, California has the 6th largest economy in the world.

It's subtle but true that Politifiact is left-slanted. The easiest way to spot it is by viewing the "Our ruling" conclusions they come to, often when a "partial truth" is reveal. For instance, you'll note in this False conclusion, they recognize "While some research suggests a small uptick in the number of part-time jobs as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Trumpâ(TM)s claim goes too far." and give it a false. But in this Half True decision about Obamacare, they recognize "However, to call it the Republican plan, as though a majority of Republicans endorsed it, goes too far. The House Republicans took a different path, and there was opposition from more hard-line members of the Republican coalition. It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.", yet it does not get a similar "False" (or even "Mostly False") ruling. I could find other examples, but I imagine you get the point. To be fair to them though, they're not extreme in their slant. They do a decent job of fact checking on both sides. But their subtle bias does show.

It's subtle but true that Politifiact is left-slanted. The easiest way to spot it is by viewing the "Our ruling" conclusions they come to, often when a "partial truth" is reveal. For instance, you'll note in this False conclusion, they recognize "While some research suggests a small uptick in the number of part-time jobs as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Trumpâ(TM)s claim goes too far." and give it a false. But in this Half True decision about Obamacare, they recognize "However, to call it the Republican plan, as though a majority of Republicans endorsed it, goes too far. The House Republicans took a different path, and there was opposition from more hard-line members of the Republican coalition. It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.", yet it does not get a similar "False" (or even "Mostly False") ruling. I could find other examples, but I imagine you get the point. To be fair to them though, they're not extreme in their slant. They do a decent job of fact checking on both sides. But their subtle bias does show.

Forbes has a pretty good article covering Politifact's issues related to their truthiness judging.

In 2008, Politifact rated as True Obama's claim that if you like your plan you can keep it. The Forbes article notes that the author of that truth-o-meter article didn't check with any health-care skeptics.

In 2009, Politifact changed their rating for the claim to 1/2 true.

In 2013, Politifact labeled it the "lie of the year."

Politifact's 2008 rating was "widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election."

So, was Politifact's wrong analysis of Obama's 2008 claims "fake news?"

Were they lying or just being too lazy.

When they judge Trump's claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS in the literal sense but don't rate Hillary's comment that Trump is a recruiting sergeant for ISIS at all, either literally or metaphorically, then yes, I'll claim that Politifact is lying or at least intentionally distorting the truth.

Facebook absolutely has the right to determine what gets posted on their site and people have the right to use their product or not. The government on the other hand has no business promoting censorship of anything, including fake news. Fake news isn't new and people have a personal responsibility to explore the "truthiness" of what they read, hear and see.

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

linky

Bush did the emergency surgery to stabilize a critical patient, Obama did the work of actually healing the patient. Both are necessary. The GOP said we should let them die.

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

"The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump. It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns. Clinton in Merkel's pocket, aligned with globalist-Euro interests and big money, is bad for Russia. Trump is only looking out for the USA, he's not beholden to Euro masters or Wall Street, so he's the logical choice for Americans.

It's incidental that Russia favored a nationalistic US president.

You left out the part where Trump had a far more difficult relationship with the truth than Clinton. And he kept calling the media -- the only independent group with the resources to fact-check him -- he kept calling them "corrupt" and "scum of the earth." Get ready for four years of this. Trump will keep dissing the media, getting to his "people" first via Twitter, and doing everything he can with the powers of the Oval Office to control what is perceived as the truth.

As for Russia liking Trump, they hated Clinton more. That was hardly a secret.

And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.

It can be both.

I prefer the simpler reason.

She's a fucking world-class liar.

No, she is not. Go check the fact checking sites. Trump is the world class liar. Clinton is actually better than many of them. reality