Slashdot Mirror

Black unemployment low a result of tax cuts from trump.
Pelosi running on repealing tax cuts.
DNC ran presidential candidate who claimed her mentor was a KKK leader, Robert Byrd.
DNC started civil war to keep slaves.
DNC filibustered civil rights act.

I'm not seeing the untruths.

Really?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

https://thepoliticalinsider.co...

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2...

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

https://www.snopes.com/cascade...

That's fine and all but it doesn't change the facts. All it does is illustrate that there is law for you and them. Just like cops who speed down the road in their personal vehicles don't get a ticket- even when they are on their way home from a shift in which they just issued you a speeding ticket.

But there are sources out there that seem to disagree with Comey's interpretation of events. I found two that closely match hillary. It seems to be a biased site and your mileage may vary.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Yup, no evidence of fraud, don't look behind the curtain. (quick, stop counting, you are making our queen look bad!)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he “accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.” According to the report, Brezler was “in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.”

One other one didn't lead to prosecution, but loss of job and clearance:

State Department Official Fired and Security Clearance Revoked After Linking to Classified Wikileaks Document: Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”

There is another one that is less clear in that article. Classified information was found on a work computer at the guys house, unknown if accidental or intentional, and he was pardoned for it as he was chummy with Bill Clinton.

Trump himself said the election was rigged and he wouldn't accept the result. Was he lying?

He may have been posturing, but it turns out he was right.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Yeah, he totally didn't blame Bush.

Who's the reality denier?

Email chains not only detail Steven's position but planned movements on insecure server AKA handing information to terrorist.

Here's a breakdown:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Here's the federal FOIA confirmation:
https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

Here's the leaked confirmation:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...

Here's the documents that show she knew it was going to happen:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...

I have a special dislike for Clinton - she's a murderer, a liar, a thief and she covers for multiple sexual offenders. My feelings about Trump are very mixed - he doesn't fit with my vision overall but I like the promise of "swamp draining" I just don't like the idea of him replacing what gets weeded out with something else. Sometime you remove something and replace it with nothing and that's the best answer.

Facts are the foundation of a rational opinion. I am not a member of the "feelings" party, nor am I a member of the "bomb them all" party, the two of which the lines tend to blur between. It's obvious you and AC are part of the "for the feelz" groups.

Who exactly? Can you provide references?

Clinton Emails 101. And if she were anyone else, she'd be looking at charges for evidence tampering and obstruction of justice

You're too late, Donald won and will now appoint a special prosecutor to put her in jail. I wonder if Obama will pardon her in advance?

Who exactly? Can you provide references?

Clinton Emails 101. And if she were anyone else, she'd be looking at charges for evidence tampering and obstruction of justice (the 30,000 emails she deleted without review or authorization) on top of mishandling classified evidence.

Seriously, this isn't even debatable. The same DOJ that let Hillary off the hook for her unsecured, unauthorized email server is prosecuting a sailor who took selfies on a sub with an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

sounds like treason

No, no, claiming the election is rigged isn't treason. This is treason. Committed by one Hillary Clinton, and probably implicating a whole list of other members of the adminstration.

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk"

Is that why Bill Clinton never admitted his? His actual assaults on multiple women, not merely kissing them without a prior written and notarized permission?

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

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

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance

A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.

So no, not a comparable incident.

subject

Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.

Not a remotely comparable incident.

not our problem.

Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".

This should be good for a laugh.

1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”

Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.

2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”

Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.

3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.

So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.

4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”

Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?

I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.

This one was actually hilarious:

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

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

Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance on the subject is not our problem.

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department

We already knew that Hillary was using her private email server for work, and that some of that information was classified.

So what is the shocking new scandal? That the previous secretary of state emailed information to an official at the state department?

, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

FTA,
"At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”

So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.

Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Yeah! The media is notoriously easy on Clinton!

Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?

The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.

It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.

I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!

Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.

Hilary gets off Scott Free.

BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.

And? What were they? Were the ever applied?

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Nothing to see here, no smoking gun. She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.

Completely back-assward. "Who hacked them" is way, way more interesting than "what's in them".

Put off the partisan goggles for a minute - just for a minute - and try to think about it dispassionately. Why would Putin (specifically, "the Russians" = "Putin personally to all intents and purposes") want to embarrass the Democrat party on the eve of its convention?

Possible answer. Or part of it, anyway.

Another possible answer.

Seriously, are you comfortable with a foreign supervillain meddling with the Presidential election?

. . . and yet, when sketchy results are reported (example, electronic voting machines visibly changing ballots, or preventing votes from registering for a candidate. . .), nothing seems to get done about it .

This is why I take my phone into the voting booth. That way, I have an independently-corroborated record of what I am reporting to have occurred. (Note: I have not observed such results personally. But, if it occurs, I will damned sure get a record of it. . . )

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

At a guess, from recent political decisions (disjoint from the election), it will benefit Republicans. Indirectly, that means Trump. I'm not suggesting that Trump has anything to do with this, only Republicans in general.

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic.

This election there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, lots of voter fraud, but nothing will be done about the election results. The people in charge will publish boilerplate politically correct statements about things being "regrettable", no one will take responsibility or blame, everyone will promise to fix the problems for the next election, and the issues will be dropped.

Such as the Democratic primary voter fraud (unrelated to Hillary or her campaign).

I remember 8 years ago, people wanting to vote fro Ron Paul in my state were told that he'd dropped out of the race (this was for the actual election).

Then some town published vote tallys showing 0 votes for Ron Paul, seven people called in and complained that they had voted for Ron Paul, the town released a statement saying "oops, it was a typo, the correct number is seven".

There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud.

At least, statistically that seems like it's *probably* the case...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

They look quite visible in the photos I have seen, did you miss that? But, in reality, it wasn't really about the WMD, it was about Saddam denying entry to the UN required weapons inspectors, and threatening Iran with a gas attack if they attacked Iraq.

It was all posturing, but posturing that risks your country being invaded to prevent the usage of weapons that you know you don't have seems like an invitation to disaster. Would you have rathered the US sit back and let Saddam gas Iran like he gassed the Kurds in 88?

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

Okay, fine. Show me where the "world" terrorism is predominantly by Islam (rather than people). Africa's terrorism is done by black local warlords. Note that some of those people may be Muslims, but it's not religiously motivated. Sure, there are white Muslims, but when I don't know of any instances in which a white Muslim has committed a terrorist act. That isn't to say there haven't been, I am just looking for sources.

Hmmm... Remember all those little schoolgirls last year that were kidnapped by Muslims and given away as sex slaves? Where was that again? Oh, yeah... Africa. Admittedly there is also a lot of lawless warfare over there, but it is hard to call it terrorism where there is no effective government or society to overthrow.

Christians cannot claim that the New Testament 'retracts a lot of the violence' while simultaneously citing Sodom and Gomorrah as 'proof' that their god hates gays. You take the entire book or you take none of it. Also, your assertion is incorrect. There are no passages that seek to deny or 'retract' the atrocities of the Old Testament.

Or, sorry... We were talking about the religion as written in the last exchange and now you chaned to the individules in that religion. OK. Who is cutting off heads again?

It was not an equal example - the GP tried to correlate distaste for a particular group with the condemnation of an entire religion. He's free to reword the example and try again, but as of now, his argument is invalid. Anyway, there are definitely Muslim-based groups that are "okay to hate" - ISIL, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there are more, depending on your area of the world.

So if it is not exactly equal, it is pointless as an example? I guess we can have no examples then as now two things are exactly equal. Oh, and the whitehouse has said that hating the Muslim brotherhood is a bad thing and anyone who does is racist.

There are 40+% more Christians in the world than Muslims, so I'd imagine it's more a matter of scale rather than 'political correctness' or whatever you intended to imply with your last sentence. But speaking about the US (again), we generally don't have Muslims attempting to inject their religion into our laws - that's been almost exclusively a Christian move, and that's why they get the biggest, baddest rap in the West, making some people think there's some sort of anti-Christiatn conspiracy going on. Get out of politics/government, and you'll see the sentiment largely change.

Population is changing... https://www.rt.com/news/246381... As for the law thing, are you seriously that delusional? This is simply the one closest to me. http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Doesn't one have to actually do something wrong to be considered a war criminal? I suppose you could call Obama a war criminal for intentionally causing ISIS by pulling out of Iraq, but the Iraqi president didn't really give him much of a choice on the matter.

If you are trying to claim that Bush is a war criminal, I would like for you to point to exactly what laws were broken, and by who exactly. After all, congress declared both wars under his presidency, so everyone in congress (which was mostly D at the time) is just a fallible for believing Saddam's claim that he had WMD and was refusing entry to weapons inspectors. Though I suppose if you had some kind of time machine, you might be able to stop the war, but frankly, when so many believe that the weapons exist, how would you stop it?

Oh, and the weapons that we thought were there, they were found, and they really were there, but don't let facts get in the way of your sound bite.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...
http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

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

Though on reflection, you could have just as easily been speaking of many other presidents that oversaw wars, I don't think any president of the US has ever committed war crimes though.

In fact, I don't know that many presidents ever even served in any wars...but I could be wrong.

"globally connected unit" shouldn't mean that you are the puppet of the big corporations which can move production and taxes to wherever its cheapest, and wherever regulations are lowest. This creates a situations where nations have to compete by offering the lowest regulations they can offer, with negative effects to environment and workers.

I don't mind that something is produced at the other end of the world. That's fine. But if its produced in a building that will likely collapse when the next earthquake happens or where a fire means dozens are dead, or where the environment is destroyed, and where there is an alternative that can avoid all these negative effects, then I don't want it.

The third and developing world is cheaper because they don't give a fuck about worker safety and the environment. The moment they care, they become as expensive as the west. This is happening in china at this moment.

And Trump in fact seems to like the democracy more than the other republican candidates. He opposes the system where big corporations fund politicians. He doesn't like the caucus system (or a layered one), and prefers straight voting for the candidate.

And you know yourself how much Hillary is supported by people who just outright hate democracy: http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Demanding that they be put at the front of the line because they couldn't shelter their kid from learning evil secular science and math.

I doubt "science and math" was, what these parents found objectionable, but that is not the point.

The point was, Obama Administration did fight to have them deported, while allowing hundreds of thousands of others — who came here not for any political reasons (whether you approve of them or not), but purely for economical ones. Came illegally, I might add. That it was done in the hope of further improving Democrats voting base is rather obvious. More honest (or simply less cautious?) Democrats are quite open about it.

Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas

One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden. Only after we stop importing poverty, would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.

Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...

Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!

It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?

It sounds like Ted Cruz has had his whistle blown by at least five women not named, "Heidi".

http://www.conservativeoutfitt...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

http://www.nationalenquirer.co...

I hear Vladimir Putin kind of likes the guy.

Yeah, I'm sure there were no WMD in Iraq...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider...
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2...

Of course, you could tell the solders exposed to them that they are liars:

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

The 1988 link was never meant to demonstrate current events, it was prefaced with the line

maybe that Saddam wasn't willing to use them?

I was demonstrating that Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past, during the run up to the war, he was refusing access to the inspectors, and acting like he was about to use weapons on Iran or the Kurds again.

Oh, and please, argue in the talk page of Wikipedia's article, I am sure those people would love to debate the merits of your arguments:

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

After all, there were no WMD in Iraq, right?

Yes, Republicans, right. Those bastards.

NC Democratic Party uses 'voter shaming' to spur turnout

I Received This Menacing Letter From the Democratic Party Trying To Shame Me Into Voting

CONFIRMED by Experts! Voting Machines in Maryland, Illinois Rigged to Support Democrats