Slashdot Mirror

First point: In my original post above, I did not specify who the outsiders are. Unless the protests are being paid for by the actual protesters, then there must be an outside source of funds. That isn't conspiracy theory, that's economics 101, someone has to pay the bills. Whether is is George Soros or someone else, and whether the outsiders funded thousands of dollars or millions, the point stands that someone with money is funding the protests.

Second point: A Google search for "funding of black lives matter" shows numerous links to articles debating the truth and falsehood of particular persons and groups funding Black Lives Matter in particular, and other similar/related groups in general. Go read a few, and you'll find more than white supremacy to keep you occupied.

Here are a few interesting ones.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
http://www.snopes.com/ford-mot...
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Third point: I also did not limit my statement to any specific protest group that has happened lately. So how about a Google search for "funding of protests"?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...

I'm sure you will use your cop-out line of "white supremacists" and "alt-right", and whatever hand-waving you have to do, to ignore reports that you don't like. There were certainly links to the sites you mentioned, and others you will also ignore. But it would take a strong will to ignore all of them.

Have a nice day.

Big Pharma is landing a windfall of profits from all the anti-anxiety prescriptions that are written as a result of white midwesterners reading stories about how Paris is under siege by muslims.

Think about the shareholders!

As an external observator it tell that if you continue to think as only a racist madman and understimate him he will win a second election. Also its disgusting your sense of moral superiority while you do things like beat Trump supporters. Who is acting like nazis?

Making up false stories for propaganda purposes is something that the Nazis did.

The video you linked to has been debunked.

The stories behind the creation of the Constitution are very fascinating and educational. The wisdom demonstrated is amazing. And most of it still applies today.

Seriously, go look at the final maps. Almost the entire middle of the country is Republican. You have the extremely populated east and west coasts that are Democrat. Should they really dictate what the entire country does? The founding fathers believed not.

So far, no one has put forth and passed an amendment to change it. So shut the fuck up.

Also, you are talking about less than 0.5% of the vote difference. As far as popular vote, I'd pretty much call that a tie. It seems very wise to me in that case that an alternative means of picking the winner.

By the way, I did not vote for Trump. I don't understand being upset when someone who you don't really agree with in the first place loses. Next time, try voting for someone instead of against someone else. The external results won't change but your internal peace might..

This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.

Wrong. Pence may be a jerk, but get your facts straight.

http://www.snopes.com/pence-la...

I never heard of a voting machine changing a vote for Trump to Clinton, but I heard of several instances of votes for Trump getting changed to Clinton.

You just said the same thing twice, you know. Well, not the same thing, opposing statements, but in the same order, which is contradictory. You can't have ever heard of it, and heard of it. You must have meant one or the other, but I don't know which.

Whichever one it is

Now you've heard it..

Of course, you can say that the people made it up made it up, or were making human errors. Or that it didn't make a difference. Or the machines were poor choices. (I would say that about touchscreens in general. Fine for tablet. Not for serious business.) But the statement was that you had never heard of it. Whichever it was, since I provided both.

Therefore, I have satisfied that condition. You're welcome.

If he comes to the decision to simply listen to the rest of the Republican party and puts in place standard conservative policies ... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one.

Well, he's draining the swamp. Draining it straight into his staff.
So maybe you will get your wish.

Personally, I expect him to be Bush++ - even more easily manipulated, and the people surrounding him will be even more extreme than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The guy's already put a hard-core climate-change denier in charge of the EPA transition. So, that's going to suck for everybody regardless of which country you live in.

You mean the one who is a member of La Raza?

How deep would you like to dig your hole?

I mean, seriously. Do just the most basic research on these Trumpisms, they don't hold up worth a darn. You've been hoodwinked. Because you're too damn lazy to check things out -- or too mired in your consensual hallucination. There's plenty of crap wrong with the world, you don't need to go making things up to have legit complaints. Unless you're just trying to serve your own agenda. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? Would you???

Because none of those past presidents were elected on a platform that actually threatened anybody's actual life and physical wellbeing, which now has happened.

Wait, I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this. And I voted for Clinton, and I'm disappointed that Trump won.

What SPECIFIC parts of Trump's platform "threatened anybody's actual life and physical well-being"?

When the people at the new president's victory party are chanting "We hate Jews, We hate Blacks, we will take out country back" - you fucking run

Neither your purple prose, nor your apparent inability to fact-check your sources, or even quote correctly, does your case any favors.

The chant was actually purported to go, "We hate Muslims, we hate Blacks, we want our great country back." And, of course, since somebody reported it on Twitter, it must be true, right?

Look, there's a great many things to dislike about our new President-elect and his policies, and a lot of things he intends to do that I will oppose as strongly as I'm able to do so. But making false and unsubstantiated claims to your little clique of liberal friends as some sort of shorthand for "I don't like Donald Trump" in some sort of bizarre attempt at self-consoling and telling yourselves that you're smarter and better than everybody else is *exactly* why Clinton lost this fucking election. She under-performend President Obama among minorities. She took her white working-class vote (the so-called 'uneducated whites' who flocked to Trump across the Rust Belt) for granted. And she got shellacked for her trouble. Keep behaving like this, and you'll simply guarantee a repeat of the same in 2020.

The people who supported Trump are not, by and large, "evil" people. Nor are they "stupid" people. They are struggling, they have been taken for granted, and when they listened for someone who was talking to them, about their problems - it was Trump telling them he'd bring back the manufacturing jobs, and fix their failing infrastructure, and lower their taxes, and pay attention to THEIR problems, too.

Please, go read this article and think about it for a few minutes. It's a brilliant piece of writing, and if you really think about it, you'll see some absolutely fantastic points that explain a major part of Trump's appeal. (Spoiler alert: it has very little to do with "we hate blacks and muslims.") Here's an excerpt:

Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage.

But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters.

To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

The Democrats USED to also care about the poor and working class white people (see: Appalachian Regional Development Act, and their consistent support from unions over the years), but they've been taking them for granted for years now. What we saw on Tuesday was a middle finger from those people to the candidate and the party that simply assumed that "Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania are solidly blue, there's no need to do much campaigning there."

If Facebook were to censor these stories, people who fall for them would assume Facebook was controlled by the "liberal media" and go elsewhere for their news. It would not keep the stories from spreading virally.

Also, I like the implication that Trump won due to FUD but the Democratic FUD is of no concern--like the incredibly stupid story posted right here about Trump's server secretly communicating with a Russian bank.

It was so obviously a non-story... but read through the comments here and you'll see how eager people were to lap it up. (I linked Snopes as it contains a variety of credible sources debunking the article).

You're spot on.
The real problem is people now have no critical thinking skills.

People don't question things like:
1. who benefits from this message?
2. what reaction is the message trying to elicit?
3. how does this message impact politics?
4, etc, etc

I have a relative who became frothing at the mouth about how France was being taken over by muslims, and that they are burning down Paris, etc.
The horror.

I showed them how the videos were doctored and how it was transit workers striking in France, etc;
But what people see on FB "Trumps" reality...

As more and more voting fraud is exposed, Hillary's chances will just keep increasing.

You mean like this kind of voting fraud:

http://alexanderhiggins.com/st...

You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.

Or an unreviewed paper by a couple students from Berkley does not count as proof. If election polls and exit polls were that reliable it would also prove that Trump won the general election because of fraud.

Instead it's more likely that old voting machines were not distributed randomly, and the variables that correlated with old voting machines also correlated with support for Clinton. And what ever these variables were, the researchers didn't manage to control for it.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/...

Well, someone told you that California lets illegal aliens vote, but that's not true. Check out the Snopes rebuttal for example.

My son just got his California learners permit. The state of California put us to rather extreme lengths to demonstrate that he was a citizen, and if he was undocumented that would have appeared on his driver's license. He had to provide his birth certificate and a second form of identification, and I as his parent had to establish my proof of residency, and my wife had to sign the document as well. And you can't even download the form you have to fill out - you must get the paper document directly from the DMV, and I'm not clear what that's about but I suspect it's an additional security measure.

All of this is to make sure that people who haven't a right to vote are not granted one because of any mistake by the Department of Motor Vehicles. And it makes getting your driver's license a lot harder if you are a citizen.

California has CHOCK FULL of Illegal's who California allows to vote - ILLEGALLY VIOLATING federal law!

That would be pretty awful, if it were true. (By the way, is it possible to "legally violate" federal law? I mean, if you're violating federal law, that's always illegal, isn't it?)

Non U.S. Citizens are NOT allowed to vote. They DO NOT have the RIGHT!

Yes, everyone knows that, and California does not have the ability to change that, regardless of whatever fever dreams you're having.

Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...

Simply put, responsible citizens do not need such help discharging their duties. We know, there is a vote, we know where it is. We've registered to vote long ago and made arrangements with baby-sitters etc. to visit the polls — or requested absentee ballots.

But such folks tend to vote Conservative (or should I say KKKon$ervative?), so, for the Illiberals to win, they need to prod the less responsible with signs, TV-commercials (ranging from "Chose or Lose" to "Vote or Die"). Such people need help registering to vote — and some even need to be reassured, they would not be prosecuted for voting illegally (a claim, Snopes bizarrely called "false").

Throughout human history, people have fought and died for the right to vote — world-wide. Whoever does not cherish that right already, should not be encouraged to take part in the country's governance.

Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. Didn't even send them to anyone.

From http://www.snopes.com/kristian... (at end of article):

Both Kristian Saucier and Hillary Clinton were federally investigated over alleged mishandling of classified information: Saucier was charged and sentenced to prison, while Clinton was controversially not indicted by the DOJ after a lengthy investigation. Shipmates of Saucier and some members of the public have contrasted the cases to suggest that Saucier faced harsher penalties for a lesser offense, but intent was the core of the FBI's recommendation not to indict Clinton, while several witnesses testified that Saucier was fully aware his actions were prohibited.

Saucier's investigation and subsequent conviction were far less complex that that of Clinton's use of private e-mail, and his lawyers suggested the decision not to indict her led to a lighter sentence their client received in his case.

As for:

I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.

Clinton wasn't an "elite" but Secretary of State, an appointed and confirmed position that is quite different from a sailor. Different treatment isn't necessarily "special" treatment, however unfair it may *seem*.

You're talking about the Bush that sneakily endorsed Hillary, right?

But thanks for outing yourself as yet another person who lacks critical thinking skills.

DAMN that is a horrifying indictment of the Hillary campaign. She's been exposed repeatedly as a corrupt pol, her top aide Huma has turned against her to save her own skin from jail, and Wikileaks,

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You so desperately want to believe that she's corrupt that you bought into the con about Abedin "turning against her." You are literally the exact kind of sucker I was talking about. Furthermore because you are so desperate to find comfort in lies this reply will be like water off a duck's back to you. At least you will be a cautionary tale for some readers.

To no effect:
http://www.snopes.com/facebook...

If you actually read the snopes article, you see that the *only source* for their claim that it has no effect is the law enforcement agency responding to the protests. Do you really think they are going to say, "Yep, the false check-ins are a problem for us!"

The worst possible way to "debunk" a story like this is to only talk to someone with very strong motivations to claim that it doesn't work. I am very skeptical of snopes' conclusions on this one.

They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.

See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?

Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!

They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]

So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.

[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.

Oh I see, they called "superstation95.com" a notorious false news site. Guess what, it is. It's a laundry list of wacko conspiracy garbage I expect to get Fwd: Fwd: Fwd from my dad.

To no effect:
http://www.snopes.com/facebook...

Oh wait you meant Trump? Nobody's actually accused him of rape.

Someone has accused him of that.

CLAIM: Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines.
ANSWER: False.
SOURCE: Snopes.com

Jill Stein had stated that she thinks big business and pharmaceutical interests are influencing the FDA's decision-making and others have spun this as anti-vaxination.

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

Oh yes? I think, looking around we can say [[non-alt-right non-clown citation needed]].

No, but nice try: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-...

"While the Tesla Motors co-founder spent more than ten years in the United States prior to becoming a citizen in 2002, it appears that he did so legally through various visa programs."

http://www.snopes.com/elon-mus...

Read my comment just above. The quote specifically came from an email from Bill Ivy to John Podesta.

There's a good run-down of the actual commentary and full context over at snopes, too.

Hefner had consent.

I'm pretty sure 13 yr olds can't give consent to a 59 yr old.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/...

I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted. Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.

Are they now?

Here is the argument that the DOL is making:

"For the QA Engineer position, from a pool of more than 730 qualified applicants, approximately 77% of whom were asian, Palantir hired six non-Asian applicants and only one Asian applicant. The adverse impact calculated by OFCCP exceeds three standard deviations. The likelihood that this result occurred according to chance is approximately one in 741.

That is, they are making an argument (in statistical terms) about random samples from the population of applicants, and that argument is utterly wrong.

So if I understand correctly, the DOL is saying that when presented with qualified candidates of this racial distribution, the odds that the "best 7" would consist of one Asian and six non-Asians are 1 in 741? As far as odds go, that's not so low as to be mathematically impossible. Consider the number of companies hiring for a position at any given time, and the odds of one of those companies facing a 1-in-741 scenarios is not that low. I think you'd need to actually examine the particulars of the applicants to determine whether the chosen candidates were not actually a better choice in some way than those not chosen, but allowing the federal government to nitpick individual candidate evaluations is a can of worms. Absent actual material evidence, a statistical analysis is not evidence of wrongdoing. Stranger things have happened.

This isn't to say they didn't do anything wrong, just that "there's a 0.135% chance you're not racist" shouldn't be enough for a conviction.

It's good to see the NSA step up to patriotically ensure Hillary's ascendancy to the throne

Wikileaks right now is acting as an undiscerning distribution point for documents provided to them by foreign-state hackers. These aren't "leaks", and the targets are private US citizens. If some fake material is included, we have no way of knowing that, and the hackers have plenty of opportunity, capability, and motivation to spread fake info. There's at least one case where the widely-reported info was not in the actual emails, and several where the targets have disputed the contents.

There is a term for doing this to a foreign country: Information Warfare.

Information warfare (IW) is a concept involving the use and management of information and communication technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[citation needed] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.

I don't care which candidate they are concentrating on. They could be doing this only to Trump instead of Clinton, and it wouldn't matter to me. Targeting our election like this is an attack on the USA, and it is our government's job to respond. Just sitting back and letting them destabilize our Democracy is for chumps. Shutting down their outlet is the bare minimum they should be doing. Hopefully there's more to come.

We could be building our own infrastructure instead of blowing up other countries infrastructure. Instead of Lockheed building more F35s, which will be obsoleted by drones in 10 years, they could be building comms infrastructure, smart roads, and other actually useful things.

Oi. Why do you hate America? Can you even imagine having the same jackoffs who are designing the F35 involved in something that's actually important like roads and bridges? This would suddenly become real (after approximately 40 years of generating nothing but a pile of paper).

The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.

Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.

First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.

Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.

Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found. So you apparently think that not only did the hit squad leave him alive, but that he wasn't really interested in telling the cops about the hit squad who'd just assassinated him.

Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.

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

Debunked.

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

That you use snopes (lol) is laughable and proves you are totally compliant and uneducated. Thus clueless. Snopes itself is now a partisan joke.

An ultra-rich, ultra-liberal couple bought snopes after conning a group into buying their insurance business. They bought it for the express purpose of abusing its once decent reputation and have turned it into a political device for the corrupt and bigoted DNC leadership that insists and I quote that they "need more compliant and uneducated voters" to win. And you of course complied.

This is the type of fact checking they mean, I assume.

They rate as "Mostly False" something where the only disputable fact is whether she "volunteered" for it, and it appears she didn't. Literally everything else in the little poster is demonstrably true, in fact they actually say the same thing below.

Hillary Clinton volunteered to defend a rapist. False. OK, they're good there.

Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True. Snopes tries to be cute and claim that she's just repeating what some psychiatrist said, because.. you know.. defense lawyers never find an expert witness to say what they want. Sorry, fact is that Clinton accused the victim of being crazy. Sure, she used the "I have been told" weasel words, but as we know from Trumps similar tactic that means nothing. It's in the affidavit and she signed it.

Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True. Again, these are unarguable facts. You can certainly quibble over context, but the fact is that the guy got a reduced sentence, that she implied he was guilty, and that she laughed about said implication. All public record and undeniable.

So tell me how that is "mostly false"? I might give them credit if they said "mixed" or "depends on context and interpretation". I can also see how even in the context of these facts you could say that none of it is a big deal, and that's a valid interpretation. But just "Mostly False"? No. It's isn't.

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

Debunked.

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

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

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

>I thought we learned back in 2000 that exit polls weren't always the most reliable.

But if they consistently reflect the actual polls over a number of elections, that's evidence that the voter intent is what got recorded. A large random variation or systemic variation would show up otherwise. If there's a discrepancy, there are all sorts of reasons that could be the cause of the discrepancy. E.G. , so it's easier to show the absence of fraud than the presence of fraud.

We've seen both cases. Oregon seems to do OK with its mail in ballots compared the other places where voter intimidation and geographic exclusion are common practice.

I grabbed one from your list, because 1969 sounded odd... Here's the first thing I found: http://www.snopes.com/bill-cli...

So I grabbed the first one and found this NPR background: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/...

Confusing, at best. She has both claimed it did happen and specifically claimed it did not happen. If it did happen as the accusation suggests, that is terrible. However, with the amount of $$ being thrown around to falsify stuff about the Clintons for 30 years, we really need evidence.

You know, a tape of Clinton bragging about how he can assault women unsolicited and get away with it would be great. Oh wait, we only have that from Trump.

Regardless, it is also worth re-iterating that Bill isn't the opposing candidate here. The biggest claims against Hillary (again, mostly unproven) are that she was antagonistic toward the accusers of her husband and that she stood by him throughout all these incidents. Should she have divorced Bill? Probably, in my opinion. But for many people divorce isn't even an option, especially in religious circles.

Again, what we are talking about here and now is a candidate who wants to be President who has been on tape saying he could sexually assault women and get away with it AND then defending that on TV saying "its just locker room talk" and "you hear it all the time". That just compounds a misunderstanding or mistake about sexual assault with a complete endorsement that its a normal part of society and everyone should just be ok with it.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton supposedly asked, according to unidentified State Department sources.

Unidentified sources also told me that she gets off on killing puppies.

Especially with the history of people who've crossed the Clinton's ending up dead?

Might want to stop believing everything you read on Facebook.

How can you defined the monster?

Trumps comments were crude but not even necessarily about real things.

Meanwhile Hillary laughed about a very real rapist of a 12 year old she got off scott free. Meanwhile Hillary destroyed the lives of MANY women that Bill Clinton raped, and enabled his behavior to sleep with a lot of other under-aged women.

How can you defend someone who acts so horribly against REAL women and be so adamantly against someone using just words? As a male feminist I am aghast that you can even consider it.

I'm not sure how you feel about Snopes and their research ability these days (or when they disagree with you)... But: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... As for Bill's transgressions, he isn't running is he? I believe you are saying she should have either 1) divorced him or 2) been sympathetic to the women he had affairs with?

Unlike Bill Clinton, who's an accused rapist [...]

While back in the real world, Donald Trump has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl. I'm not saying we should condemn people because of accusations against them but Donald Trump is not free from rape allegations.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/...

Tying a 13 year old up and forcibly having sex with her while she begs him to stop sounds like rape to me.

Nope, you're thinking of the wrong case to think it was arbitrary. This one was simply refiled to add a new witness statement and in a venue to avoid upfront legal costs which could not be avoided in California. See here.

Nah, it's a lie. And I stand by that. http://www.slate.com/articles/... http://www.yalescientific.org/... http://io9.gizmodo.com/5911969... I mean hell, even Snopes can't verify it: http://www.snopes.com/great-pa... Now, I did that in 5.3 seconds of google searching....why couldn't you?

This again? Stein supports vaccination, but has a problem with the way business is conducted by the FDA.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green...

For the nuke comments, sadly, I have to give you that one.
https://twitter.com/DrJillStei...

Think I'm doing a write-in for my cat this term.

Oh please. http://www.snopes.com/police-p...

Who needs paid agitprop when idiots do a fine job already.