The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[ReggieB]

REPORT: Clinton Lackey David Brock Caught ‘Money Laundering’
http://heatst.com/politics/david-brock-money-laundering/
I decided to follow the enclosed link to check the source for this article.

thecitizensaudit.com says their mission is "...to prove that regular Americans have the power to hold their Government accountable. Through unapologetic use of our First Amendment Right to a Free Press, we will fulfill this mission by producing original research and insightful reporting on the critical issues of our time.


A look at their home page shows NO articles about Trump's monetary impropriety.
Could there be bias that thus brings into question honesty?

Entering Trump into the "search this site" function on the page on the page brings up NO articles.
Could there be bias that thus brings into question this site's honesty?

I googled one of the articles in that post and the only outlets carrying it seemed to be on the right-hand side of the political divide, the most prominent being brietbart. More than enough information for me to discount it for now.

 

[yogoshio]

Then by that logic, when left leaning sites post articles decrying some action of a conservative, they should be ignored as well?

 

[rayski]

Then by that logic, when left leaning sites post articles decrying some action of a conservative, they should be ignored as well?

Do you get all your news from the right?

 

[BD9]

Politifact may be one the most unbiased sites on the web. They treat everyone the same no matter political affiliation.
And, they do a great job of fact checking. They don't take fact checking lightly because it affects all of us.

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

At PolitiFact, our policy is that we fact-check statements and claims using the information available at the time. That policy stands. But in this case, while the evidence FBI director James B. Comey presented wasn’t available to us, it was available to Clinton through her own emails. She had every opportunity to present an accurate accounting in comments to the public and voters. She did not do that.

Even though just two emails out of many thousands were marked classified at the time they were sent, it’s more than the number Clinton cited: zero.

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

I think the last sentence of the last paragraph is important.
There also seems to be some disagreement among govt. agents and agencies over what should be classified or not.

 

[ReggieB]

Then by that logic, when left leaning sites post articles decrying some action of a conservative, they should be ignored as well?

I said discounted for now, not forever. I read some of it, it's been noted and I'll come back to it if I need to but right now I don't fancy the clickbait.

 

[gangababa]

Logically, one does subject all sources of knowledge to the test of reality.
When the source shows clear bias, and thus the spin is obvious, one asks for 'more proof'.
When the "smoke" blown by any dissembler is acknowledged by people of multiple 'spins', then perhaps we need to investigate the fire (which may still simply be someone with a permit to burn garbage).

For me, when the source belongs to a tribe of liars or deniers of reality, I then ask for extraordinary proof. If refuges are a danger, I want more than a bowl of skittles as evidence.
If a skittles analogy is accepted as deep thought, then the bowl ought to more accurately be seen as an Olympic size swimming pool; and that changes the danger ratio considerably.
Guns in the hands of good gun owners kill more of USA than Syrian refugees.

Trump claims to have a secret plan to defeat Daesh, saying he knows more than the generals.
If so, if he has a workable plan, and is keeping it secret, then he is a traitor to the needs of USA.

Below for an example of such ignorance* of truth and spinning that defies reality.
*Ignorance as a deliberate or habitual behavior of 'ignoring' evidence and reality.

The truth about Skittles.

Added edit re: the Trump campaign official in Ohio referenced above.
Ohio Trump campaign chair steps down after her unhinged rant blaming Obama for racism
(Brad Reed writes)
"Kathy Miller, the Trump campaign chairwoman for Mahoning County, Ohio, has now left the campaign ...
Bloomberg’s Joshua Green reports that Miller agreed to step down in the wake of her controversial remarks where she said ...“I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected.”...
In a statement, Miller expressed regret...“My personal comments were inappropriate, and I apologize,” she said. ...

It’s worth noting that Miller has now issued more formal apologies ... than Donald Trump ...(who) still hasn’t apologized for anything"

 

[Msek]

@gangababa @ReggieB very true one should be aware of the news source.
The Clinton News Network is my gold standard for fact checking to avoid falling for misinformation. I did find another source for the article with great graphics which improves the grokability, it too is from a despicable site though. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._a_lot_like_a_money_laundering_operation.html

One does have to wonder what Brock is thinking sometimes. As seen in these articles, from pretty much every news source, he is out right begging for dirt on Trump, with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, in public even.
https://news.google.com/news/story?...ved=0ahUKEwjb3vXKu6PPAhUO12MKHXw5CLYQqgIIKTAD
Every one knows there is Hillary dirt every where one looks, so why point out that the Donald is such a great liar, thief, cheat that millions need to be spent in the hopes of caching him. I mean come which side is Brock on, one has to wonder when you see him pointing out how much better he is at it than Hillary = more qualified for the position!

While I try my best I do sometimes fail.
I was see right through this guy trying to bash on Hillary.

 

[His_Highness]

I've been subjected to security based rules for over 30 years.

Early on, before SOx audit controls became such a huge deal, you could have broken a rule and not been fired..... IF breaking the rule didn't allow for a breach or embarrassment by the company. Since SOx and it's controls became a 'Public' thing that could cost a corporation money and reputation points.... getting fired has become more of a distinct possibility.

One thing is for sure....answering I don't recall the way HRC did would have gotten me fired. No company I've worked for would stand for that. Shouldn't our country minimally have the same standards as a corporation?

(Begin Sarcasm) I don't know about you folks but I value the country a little more than GE or even Apple. (End Sarcasm).

Do I or did I have each security rule memorized? Nope. Every year I get audited intrusively, internally and externally. And yet...I've never broken or bent a rule enough to cause a 'finding'. The reason I've been clean....common sense, being careful/fearful and some technical competence.

I would expect my Mom to do what Hillary did because my Mom was completely clueless when it comes to technology based common sense. I expect way more from the next POTUS.

Having said all that....I'm still voting for HRC.

 

[grokit]

No company I've worked for would stand for that. Shouldn't our country minimally have the same standards as a corporation?

Your standing inside the company determines what kind of testimony you can get away with. It really depends upon whether you work for the corporation, or the corporation works for you

 

[Joel W.]

Peace out an enjoy yourself, it is all good.
As a newbie here I did notice quite a few folks I thought might participate do not. It also occurred to me that some of the folks that do post might be scarfing up a little extra spending money, if so good on ya toke up.
BUSTED: Pro-Clinton Super PAC Caught Spending $1 Million on Social Media Trolls
http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/

Thanks...There is some useful information in there, specially when you keep digging.

"The best tactic to use against “professionals” is to simply downvote and move on. The more you argue with them, the more likely people will read the astroturfer’s posts.

Keep your eyes out for very young accounts, repetition of phrasing and syntax (the same “Sanders only diagnoses the problem…” talking points, for instance) in every post, and rapid fire posting – 10+ comments in the span of a few minutes is a good indicator.".


Nice.

#Dncleak

 

[BD9]

When the source shows clear bias, and thus the spin is obvious, one asks for 'more proof'.

Politifact site seems to be the most unbiased site I've found.

PolitiFact checks claims by elected officials, candidates, leaders of political parties and political activists. We examine officials at all levels of government, from county commissioners to U.S. senators, from city council members to the president.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

 

[gangababa]

I invite everyone to visit the cartoons pages of americanthinker.com to see how they think.

The spin is constant, undeniable and mean spirited, as is typical of one tribe among USA.
See this pastor's essay here about that tribe's "mean-spiritedness, bigotry, unfairness, carelessness toward the poor, funneling wealth to the richest, undermining abortion reduction, destroying our fragile planet, playing into the hands of terrorists, exploiting the anger of suffering people, and being driven more by the love of power than the power of love."

 

[Silat]

REPORT: Clinton Lackey David Brock Caught ‘Money Laundering’
http://heatst.com/politics/david-brock-money-laundering/
I decided to follow the enclosed link to check the source for this article.

thecitizensaudit.com says their mission is "...to prove that regular Americans have the power to hold their Government accountable. Through unapologetic use of our First Amendment Right to a Free Press, we will fulfill this mission by producing original research and insightful reporting on the critical issues of our time.


A look at their home page shows NO articles about Trump's monetary impropriety.
Could there be bias that thus brings into question honesty?

Entering Trump into the "search this site" function on the page on the page brings up NO articles.
Could there be bias that thus brings into question this site's honesty?

Did you read the whole smear on Brock?
It is laughable.
No evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed.
And the other articles I read are also Breitfartian in scope.
The site is so obviously aimed at the fearful and easily convinced bagger base it makes one laugh out loud.
Part 2 will be about Brock being from Mars.

 

[Msek]

Et tu, Louis?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1090151884425416

 

[little maggie]

A couple of gripes: Trump has multiple incidents of breaking the law. The focus on Hilary is on one issue. Do people really think that Trump is suddenly going to be law abiding if he is elected?

And- are there any registered Democrats here? They have apparently hired someone incompetent to develop a plan for getting money. I'm fed up with getting messages saying: Trump wins; Hilary loses. Do they think that this is going to encourage people to send money in? If anything I'm probably going to drop out of being registered.

 

[Joel W.]

It's about to all boil over. I can smell it berning.

RIP DNC

"https://twitter.com/TriangleSecrets/status/760043048147357696"

 

[yogoshio]

Do you get all your news from the right?

Generally, I look at multiple sources regarding an issue, look for clickable sources for said material, and do my best to understand then the source material, then go back and try to understand the different biases from the original articles I read.

I tend to prefer foreign news sources as they are better (sometimes) at being objective, whereas I have yet to find anything but subjective American based media.

Does that meet your requirements? Do you really think my standings about Trump or Hillary both lead you to believe I'm one sided or uninformed? I happen to hate both with a fiery passion for not too dissimilar reasons.

 

[Msek]

Between Two Ferns: sativa recommended then scroll down for video

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/09/22/hillary-tries-look-cool-two-ferns-gets-trolled-instead-video/

 

[little maggie]

Still, as much as I dislike the DNC, there is so much more negative input on Hilary than Trump. A lot of negativity about the Clinton's period. People forget what he, at least, did for the economy. Why people think such a poor businessman as Trump can run the country is a mystery.

 

[little maggie]

Time for a good laugh...

Candidate Claims Hillary Is Honest And Crowd LOL's

Published on Sep 20, 2016

Charlie Christ runs for everything in Florida. During a recent campaign speech he said he believed Hillary Clinton is honest. The audience didn’t. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below. http://tytnetwork.com/join

"During a Florida congressional debate, the audience began to jeer and guffaw after one of candidates said he was voting for Hillary Clinton because of her honesty.

Republican Florida Congressman David Jolly is locked into a heated race with former Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democratic governor Charlie Christ in Florida’s 13th district. Monday night, the two candidates debated for the first time at St. Petersburg College.

“I am proud of Hillary Clinton. I think she’s been a very good Secretary of State, a very good senator from the state of New York,” Crist said when asked if he would vote for his party’s candidate. “The thing I like most about her is she is steady. I believe she is strong. I believe she is honest.” It was the last remark that caused a sudden swell of laughter.”*

I think this is sad. And frightening. Do you think the same people would laugh if he'd said Trump was honest? Hilary is a politician- lying is inevitable. But is she a narcissistic sociopath like someone else running. I don't think so.

 

[Stevenski]

I also wonder about the workload that she had in comparison to your good selves? For instance, she got a concussion, advised not to be at work but still went to work and still expected to remember details of every briefing she had during that time period...

I would think that is an absolutely damming indictment of her inability to follow simple advice from medical professionals. If she will not follow the most basic of medical instructions then what is the likelihood she will listen to her "advisers". Itis not like she has a history of running her own race or anything......

She gets a head injury serious enough to be considered a concussion, ignored medical advice & returned to work medically compromised. No one reasonable is asking for her to recall every meeting & memo but there are a number of memorable meetings & emails she received that she "does not recall". Either she has brain damage with serious memory issues & should immediately step down or she is a malignant liar of the first order. It is one or the other & the big question is is this someone who should have access to launch codes?

 

[grokit]

So you guys thing the msm is pushing for a closer race "than it should be", just to sell more papers and get everybody to watch the debates? I'm talking a world-wide audience here, this could be ratings gold.
The shitshow starts monday night

 

[little maggie]

I would think that is an absolutely damming indictment of her inability to follow simple advice from medical professionals. If she will not follow the most basic of medical instructions then what is the likelihood she will listen to her "advisers". Itis not like she has a history of running her own race or anything......

She gets a head injury serious enough to be considered a concussion, ignored medical advice & returned to work medically compromised. No one reasonable is asking for her to recall every meeting & memo but there are a number of memorable meetings & emails she received that she "does not recall". Either she has brain damage with serious memory issues & should immediately step down or she is a malignant liar of the first order. It is one or the other & the big question is is this someone who should have access to launch codes?

A malignant liar? Yes following medical advice is important. But what you are seeing is a compulsive worker- not someone who is devious. It's not very healthy to have that attitude towards work but it's actually pretty normal for some dedicated professionals.

 

[Stevenski]

A malignant liar? Yes following medical advice is important. But what you are seeing is a compulsive worker- not someone who is devious. It's not very healthy to have that attitude towards work but it's actually pretty normal for some dedicated professionals.

Call me jaded but I don't buy it, not for a second. If you said she works compulsively at being the most devious Hillary she can be, I would buy it without question. Politicians by their very nature are liars & deal almost exclusively in half truths with a side serving of smoke & mirrors. That's just the way it is unfortunately. She is as cunning as a shithouse rat politically but she is still a shithouse rat at heart & someone I would consider in the upper echelon of most evil people on the planet.

Hillary is a extremely capable politician & Trump is so far behind politically it would be laughable, if it was not so fucking serious with very real consequences for the planet. That is the terrifying thing, she is a 1,000,000 x better choice than Trump could ever be & that includes her brain trauma.

This election is a case of do you want to have a leg amputated or your spine broken? Either way life will change & not for the better in the foreseeable future. Here is to hoping they have strong VP's as the winner could realistically have a "Kennedy incident".

 

[macbill]