So the AP, which NO ONE would call a conservative outfit, says that a huge percentage of mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation, were given special access to her, while she was SecState and on our dime. That Weiner guy's wife, her top aide, was a paid employee of both the State Dept, and the Clinton Foundation, at the same time (but Hilary is opposed to crony capitalism, mind you).

The Foundation has accepted tens of millions in donations from some of the worst places in the world. But Bill says that if she's elected President, the foundation will stop taking foreign donations.

I ask this of the liberal apologists here...what could possibly be wrong about accepting foreign donations as POTUS, that's also OK to accept donations while she is SecState?

Just in time for the debates, It's going to be quite the show. She's very lucky her opponent is Trump, and not someone articulate enough to club her with this stuff like a baby seal.

Well you do know that if it weren't for the Clinton Foundation millions of children would've died . She is a saint, a modern-day Robin Hood if you will .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the AP, which NO ONE would call a conservative outfit, says that a huge percentage of mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation, were given special access to her, while she was SecState and on our dime. That Weiner guy's wife, her top aide, was a paid employee of both the State Dept, and the Clinton Foundation, at the same time (but Hilary is opposed to crony capitalism, mind you).
I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

Confucius Say: If U read between the lines of an email it may show more then what is on the surface.........:)

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

The AP story says that Mrs Weiner was a paid employee of the foundation, but since your supposition is more favorable to Hilary, I am certain it is fact-based.

"I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing."

I thought the AP broke the story yesterday. Not saying it's a crime. But does it invalidate her claims that she doesn't thin the system is fair, because it favors insiders? She claims to be opposed to cronyism, doesn't this spit in the face of her claim?

With liberals, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. Always. And the sheep could care less.

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer :doh: . The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless of their generous donations to the Clinton Crime Family Syndicate .

I believe the corrupt and partisan DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing :doh:.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play but it's a start. You've got nothing...but man it keeps flowing

yup

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

"an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play"

If that's all it was, you'd be correct. However, the e-mail does a bit more, and shows that the crown prince of some swell place that persecutes gays, couldn't get an audience with her until after he donated big time.

She was on our dime as SecState, she's not supposed to use that platform to enrich her foundation.

If there was nothing there Spence, answer me this...why have they said that if she's elected POTUS, the foundation will stop taking foreign donations? By what logic is it inappropriate for POTUS to take foreign donations, but not SecState? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

"You've got nothing"

I have enough honesty to be able to criticize those on my side, when the situation warrants. If someone on my side lied about coming under sniper fire, I'd be able to say out loud that they lied. That makes one of us.

I thought the AP broke the story yesterday. Not saying it's a crime. But does it invalidate her claims that she doesn't thin the system is fair, because it favors insiders? She claims to be opposed to cronyism, doesn't this spit in the face of her claim?
There's no evidence the system favored insiders, in fact that latest emails actually show exactly the opposite of pay for play. The people requesting access through the Foundation were roundly denied aside for a single person who was working formal channels in parallel.

The AP story doesn't provide anything beyond showing that many people she met with -- people any Sec State would be meeting with -- had some donation connection or worked for organizations that had donated money. That's not pay for play.

If that's all it was, you'd be correct. However, the e-mail does a bit more, and shows that the crown prince of some swell place that persecutes gays, couldn't get an audience with her until after he donated big time.

You mean that swell place that's home to the US Navy Central Command and the 5th Fleet?

The Crown Prince had set up a scholarship program with the Clinton Foundation in 2005. He had requested a meeting via formal channels to talk about tension in Middle East elections. When Clinton couldn't commit he asked his contact at the foundation as well.

The very same Crown Prince also met previously with Powell, Rice and Bush 43.

There's nothing here Jim, you're being played by a conservative scandal factory and a media more concerned about selling ads that real journalism.

I'm sure a lot of rich people wake up one morning and say "I think I feel like donating millions to the Clinton Foundation , they are such nice people and 10% goes to a good cause "

You would have to be a complete fool not to believe there was something in it for the Clintons and Huma , who I believe just may be more evil than the Clintons themselves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure a lot of rich people wake up one morning and say "I think I feel like donating millions to the Clinton Foundation , they are such nice people and 10% goes to a good cause "

Actually yes, a lot of rich people do.

You would have to be a complete fool not to believe there was something in it for the Clintons and Huma , who I believe just may be more evil than the Clintons themselves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Based on what? Let me guess, you read about it on Brietbart.

Actually yes, a lot of rich people do.

Based on what? Let me guess, you read about it on Brietbart.

No in reality they don't Spence . If they really wanted to give to charity there are other more efficient methods of getting that money to where it needs to go. But if they wanted to write off a gift in exchange for a fat favor, the Clinton Foundation is the way to go.

As far as Huma goes... Let's just say it's based on who she associates with
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No in reality they don't Spence . If they really wanted to give to charity there are other more efficient methods of getting that money to where it needs to go.
I'd like to see you justify this.

I would like to hear any justification as to why Hillary and her "foundation" would solicit money from the Saudis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's gonna be a full time job defending her :hihi:

it's gonna be a full time job defending her :hihi:

I wonder what spence gets paid for doing it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to hear any justification as to why Hillary and her "foundation" would solicit money from the Saudis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I would like to hear any evidence that Hillary and her "foundation" solicited any money from the Saudis.

When the "foundation" was formed in 1997 the primary goal was fundraising for the Clinton Presidential Library and Saudi Arabia appears to have given 10 million which is about what they gave Bush. There were no donations when she was Sec State and some smaller donations after...no evidence anything was solicited.

Oh, the outrage.

I wonder what spence gets paid for doing it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A life time supply of straws and all the koolaid he can drink.....

.......and maybe an occasional sniff of her undies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, there's a question I have asked twice, I don't see that you attempted to answer. So here it is for a third time.

The Clintons have said that if he wins the election, the foundation will stop accepting foreign donations.

Here is my question...are you ready? By what possible logic is it unethical for a POTUS to accept foreign donations, but acceptable for a SecState to accept the same exact donations?

I cannot wait for your reply. I'm all a-twitter.

From the article...

The email exchange about Bahrain shows the Clinton Foundation’s top executive Doug Band in 2009 asking Clinton’s State Department aide Huma Abedin to set up a meeting between Clinton and Crown Prince Salman, who had recently been named the deputy supreme commander of Bahrain’s armed forces. Band referred to Salman as a “good friend of ours.” Abedin told Band that Clinton had initially rejected a previous request for a meeting with Salman because “she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel.” Soon after, though, Abedin told Band that the State Department was now offering Salman a meeting with Clinton.

Salman has directed $32 million to a Clinton Foundation program, and the Kingdom of Bahrain has donated up to $100,000 more. As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_top/391086151.html

By what possible logic is it unethical



“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has...................

I got a secret for you Jim

Money will buy you anything ANYTHING

I got a secret for you Jim

Money will buy you anything ANYTHING

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.

As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.

And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.

You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity.

I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.

As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.

And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.

You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity.

My comment went way over your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to this.
https://youtu.be/6TWwyhCVBDg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth :rotflmao:

in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth :rotflmao:

Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one is accusing Sanders of stealing the money they used to buy that house. The point is, he has a $600,000 second house, which means that he has no problem keeping enough of what he thinks is his, to pamper himself. Yet he doesn't think others have the same right. Again, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. He spent most of his campaign telling us that income inequality is evil, yet he has no issue with lavishing himself with the spoils of income inequality.

If it's OK for him to acquire enough wealth to have a $600,000 vacation home, then he has no right to say it's wrong that an investment banker at Goldman Sachs tries to do the same exact thing.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has...................

Quite right. And zip from Spence as far as answering my question goes. Because he can't.

Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

even worse....those funds should have been redistributed to the masses...this is an outrage! how many homes does a devoted socialist need!

actually....he's doing alright for a guy that's never had a real job....

No one is accusing Sanders of stealing the money they used to buy that house. The point is, he has a $600,000 second house, which means that he has no problem keeping enough of what he thinks is his, to pamper himself. Yet he doesn't think others have the same right. Again, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. He spent most of his campaign telling us that income inequality is evil, yet he has no issue with lavishing himself with the spoils of income inequality.

If it's OK for him to acquire enough wealth to have a $600,000 vacation home, then he has no right to say it's wrong that an investment banker at Goldman Sachs tries to do the same exact thing.
Obviously you were not paying close attention to sanders message.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to this.
https://youtu.be/6TWwyhCVBDg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, this went way over my head. Very nice song, and well sung. There are millions of YouTube videos and I have not seen even a small fraction of most. Maybe a tiny, tiny, fraction. I apologize for not knowing about this video or about Guy Clark. Who's Guy Clark?

But, anyway, I hope you didn't take my post seriously. Or, at least, didn't take it literally. I was mostly funnin', with a, perhaps, small relevant point. Hope that didn't go over your head.

Quite right. And zip from Spence as far as answering my question goes. Because he can't.
The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.

The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.

don't tell her that :rotf2:


she'd better kill Julian Assange pretty soon here.....

The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.

Yes, the answer is simple. The point of doing it when she was SecState was to help her become POTUS. When she was the Secretary, she had influence and could make promises to donors about what policy she would set when she became POTUS. When she gets that prize, mission will be accomplished--she will no longer need the Foundation.

Yes, the answer is simple. The point of doing it when she was SecState was to help her become POTUS. When she gets that prize, mission will be accomplished--she will no longer need the Foundation.
You forgot the evil laugh.

You forgot the evil laugh.

The evil laugh would not be useful when asking for money. It is useful to pooh pooh those who would point out what she was doing.

The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.

You're saying that the SecState has zero authority to set, or even to influence, policy. That is demonstrably false. SecState can't unillaterally declare war. But SecState can decide who to meet with, and who to suggest we sell arms to. During her tenure, it sure seems to have been beneficial for those who want US-made arms, to give big. The guy from Bahrain wrote a personal check of 32M to her foundation, then - VOILA!! - he is able to buy more weapons from America, which he used to crush those who suggested that democracy might be a better option than totalitarianism.

To you, that's not even the appearance of impropriety.

Enjoy your denial-fest.

She sold her share to her brother for $150,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously you were not paying close attention to sanders message.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, I wasn't.

who is she NOT having SEX with i wanna Know

kinda reminds me of Al Bundy doing anything to avoid
going upstairs with PEG.....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-075420856.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/media/associated-press-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/media/associated-press-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html
So the AP based the story on the facts available and the Clinton News Network says it's 100% inaccurate because they based the story only using available information and didn't include the unavailable information.

So where is the proof of the overestimate the amount of non government people who got to have a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
What a surprise.
Looks like they are waiting until after the election to release any more information that could prove whether the AP was overstating or under stating the influence a donation to the Clinton Foundation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-clinton-calendars-wont-released-until-election-064525970--election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Spence, the AP is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/media/associated-press-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

Why would the AP question Hilary? Anyone who can laugh in the face of that sniper fire she claims to have come under, is clearly above reproach.

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.
The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

Spence, there is an email from a foundation employee to Hilary's secstate email. In it, the foundation employee says that the prince of Bahrain (who gave $32million to the foundation) is "a good friend of ours". Coincidentally, after this email, Hilary met with the guy and sold him weapons.

Also, Weiner's wife was a paid employee of the State Dept, and the foundation, at the same time.

There is no email where Hilary says that you have to pay to get access to her. But there is certainly the appearance, once again, of impropriety.

And again, there is no earthly reason why foreign donations are acceptable when she was secstate, but inappropriate as POTUS. Secstate is a very powerful position, maybe you can take high school civics and bone up on that.

and sheeple still defend her......just call a spade a spade. lips moving? - she's lying.

why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her

sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd

we just know it to be true !

and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling

wdmso- had she not been caught in many lies? do you honestly believe that her and bill are not shady characters in their dealings since Arkansas? and trump? I think he's a loud mouthed idiot- I'll take that over Clinton any day and twice on Tuesdays.

wdmso- had she not been caught in many lies? do you honestly believe that her and bill are not shady characters in their dealings since Arkansas? and trump? I think he's a loud mouthed idiot- I'll take that over Clinton any day and twice on Tuesdays.

Sheeple :uhuh: - Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.

why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her

sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd

we just know it to be true !

and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling

"why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing "

I see no irrefutable evidence that she ever committed a crime. But wrongdoing? You betcha.

There is videotape of her claiming she came under sniper fire on that overseas trip, when we know that didn't happen. And she still won't admit she lied. If such a lie means that Brian Williams is unfit to read news off a teleprompter, maybe it means she's unfit to be POTUS.

There's video evidence that she denied that Bill was cheating on her. Instead she claimed that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way. That means either she's a liar, or she genuinely believes that (in which case, she is insane).

We know there is video evidence that she attacked the victims of her husband's predation. Some feminist.

Regarding Benghazi, we know she flip-flopped about the root cause of the attack. By a stunning coincidence, every time she made a public statement, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to a video (and therefore not something she can be blamed for). In her private statements to Chelsea and others, she concedes it was terrorism. When pressed on the inconsistency, she said "what does it matter". To most people, the truth matters.

regarding the emails, we know she told multiple lies. She said she turned over all the emails (except the thousands that the FBI found on their own). She said she sent none that were flagged as classified at the time (except the ones that she sent which were flagged at the time). She said all the remaining emails were not related to work - wrong. Then she blames the nearest convenient black guy - Colin Powell.

While being investigated, her husband gets on the attorney generals plane for a chat. Two days later, the DOJ announces no charges. Immediately after, the Clinton campaign states that they would consider keeping her on as attorney general. No quid pro quo there, nope, not at all.

Now, the foundation. Is there direct evidence that you had to donate to see her? Of course not. Are there a lot of big donors who were able to see her, during her time as SecState? Yep. Does it have the appearance of impropriety? Yep.

She's not a murderer. But she has zero morals.

why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her

sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd

we just know it to be true !

and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling

It's simple, us "uneducated" folks can see the writing on the wall. You don't amass a fortune of $200 million , when your only job has been public service , without doing shady things . She is corrupt , it's not that hard to avoid " evidence " when The Department of Justice is also corrupt . You my friend are extremely naïve .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear a lot of Trump voters, like me, admit that he's a crass, obnoxious jerk...but that we are voting for him because his policies are way more in-line with our values, than her policies.

I don't hear many Hilary supporters, able to concede that she is prone to any moral lapses. Liberals don't like to concede anything. Ever.

What a choice. God help us.

Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.



this gets funnier every time you write it...seriously :rotf2:

I know, it is amazing how blind people are! Maybe Sheeple?

Sheeple :uhuh: - Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.

When you look at "independent" fact checkers "ratings" over time, you notice patterns that don't exactly look "independent." Who checks the fact checkers? When did they become God?

As far as presidential candidates go, they are caught in a warp in which, for that time, they are supposed to convince a hundred million people that they have "answers" to what are, for the most part, the wrong questions. It is that, unholy, yet peculiarly sacred in its own recurring way, time when we expect to hear the hoped for fabrications on how the country will be "fixed."

We don't really expect that the promises will be kept, that what is said is actually true, we just hope that it convinces enough voters to put the candidate of our prejudicial choice into the position of giving us what we think we want.

Except for the minority of "purists" who insist on being true to constitutions and such--to an actual predictable, agreed upon system of government. But the purists don't really count when it's time to choose between fundamental truths and getting stuff. It is difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is interested in getting stuff, especially "free" stuff. And whatever lies it takes to convince those voters that they're going to get stuff will be forgotten if their guys win. And if they don't get their stuff right away, or the stuff isn't as good as promised, there's the next round of presidential candidates to make it happen, or even make it better. All they need to do is say the right things, make the right promises to most of the different "constituencies."

Is there really such a thing as a "lie" when it comes to politics? Isn't it true that you can tell when a politician is lying--when his lips are moving? So when is a politician the most "dishonest" one? When her lips move more than the others?

Lying in political campaigns is a unique beast, apparently an acceptable one. Lying in your personal life is another matter. Between Hillary and Trump, who lies more outside of campaigning is probably not quantifiable.

And is sarcasm a lie?

Sheeple :uhuh: - Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.

Good lord, that is something that cannot be measured accurately, unless they are analyzing every single thing the person has ever said. How do they even quantify this? Let me guess, they take a "sample" of statements made recently. If that's the case, then the honesty value depends entirely on which statements are considered, and which are not.

If Hilary gives a speech and mentions the "war on women" crap, is that considered a lie? When she says I am anti-woman, is that a lie? if not, who cares what the study says.

Let's say Trump is a liar - fine. The point is, none of the left-leaning folks here, can bring themselves to criticize her about anything.

They are both morally repugnant. She's a little more slick about it.

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies - Trump was rated more dishonest then every candidate (in fact, the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates - So I guess that invalidates the work they do).

I criticize Hillary but if you're left of center here you're basically a Trotskyists or a Maoist so there is little point in partaking.

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies .

:huh:

this is why we have Hillary v. Trump

another page of more of the same. say it enough and its got be true ...

The right has been after them since Arkansas and thats my point and haven't put bat to ball once .. so the right is incompetent and completely unable to find anything ? even the Russians and Asange assisting them ..or are the Clintons Master criminals ?

It's simple, us "uneducated" folks can see the writing on the wall. You don't amass a fortune of $200 million , when your only job has been public service , without doing shady things . She is corrupt , it's not that hard to avoid " evidence " when The Department of Justice is also corrupt . You my friend are extremely naïve .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and you need a new tin foil hat :spin:

another page of more of the same. say it enough and its got be true ...

The right has been after them since Arkansas and thats my point and haven't put bat to ball once .. so the right is incompetent and completely unable to find anything ? even the Russians and Asange assisting them ..or are the Clintons Master criminals ?
Master criminals who have been skirting the law for a long time. What amazes me is how anyone can support her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/30/the-clinton-foundation-is-taking-some-friendly-fire/?ref=yfp

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/29/hillary-practically-promised-pay-play-state-department-2009-confirmation-hearing?ref=yfp

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/clinton-foundation-donation-algeria-haiti/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies - Trump was rated more dishonest then every candidate (in fact, the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates - So I guess that invalidates the work they do).

This is part of what I mean by answering the wrong question. Arguing about who told the most lies does not answer the question of what form of government do you want. They all lie to some degree. And what are called lies are not always actual lies. And the importance and motivation of and for the lies is not compared. And the importance of the number of lies, whether more or less, is not revealed. Oh, gee golly, he told ten lies, I only told five. That makes me a better person. Or a better candidate for POTUS.

Yeah, right.

We're talking campaign politics here. Pointing out who lies more distracts from what is important. It focuses on the irrelevance of how one is more of the same than the other, and it distracts from what the important difference is.

And I'm not pointing to the "right" or "left" here. Both sides throw the lie bomb at each other. And both sides, to some degree, are right.

And I certainly don't depend on so-called fact checkers to point out who told the most lies. The lies are in my face. I can see them clearly. And I see many lies that the fact checkers seem to miss. Or choose not to cover.

I criticize Hillary but if you're left of center here you're basically a Trotskyists or a Maoist so there is little point in partaking.

Could someone please explain what the "center" is. Is there a centrist agenda? Is there a centrist policy? Is there a centrist form of government? (Oh, it can be argued that the Constitution is a center of sorts, but who follows that outworn piece of paper?)

Trotskyism was a sort of center. Maybe between Stalinist and Leninist. Isn't Maoism the great center? Didn't Mao say "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend"?

My gosh, how can we criticize the beautiful lies of such great men. After all, it was the wonderful form of government they created. That is what matters, not the lies.

So, if what hangs in the balance now, is the type of government that remains and is carried forth in the aftermath of the election, what is that type, and which candidate, or party can more likely deliver it? To me, that is the important question. Not who lies more. Nor who's better looking. Nor what gender. Nor who's more predictable. The peripheral fluff disintegrates before the force of government power. As does most everything else.

What form of government do you want?

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies - Trump was rated more dishonest then every candidate (in fact, the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates - So I guess that invalidates the work they do).

.

And yet according to every poll , trust seams to be her biggest problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet according to every poll , trust seams to be her biggest problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with you there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lying just comes so easy to the Clintons. from the monica " the humidor" Lewinski to the I landed in a chopper under fire.

Go do a search and see how they measure the lies - Trump was rated more dishonest then every candidate (in fact, the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates - So I guess that invalidates the work they do).

I criticize Hillary but if you're left of center here you're basically a Trotskyists or a Maoist so there is little point in partaking.

"Go do a search and see how they measure the lies"

No thanks. You posted the "truth survey" as meaningful, you can post the details if you want. There is no accurate way to measure who is the bigger liar between two people, unless you analyze every public statement ever made by both of them. That's not possible, so it's meaningless.

Please don't confuse my dismissal of a "truth ranking", as support of Trump's character. It's not. My problem isn't with who the bigger liar is, it's the fact that many liberals (Spence for example) deny that Hilary has any issues with telling the truth. Is she the biggest liar on the planet? Probably not. Is she a serial liar? Yep.

"the 3 Dem. candidates where rated less dishonest then ALL of the Repub. candidates "

Shocker.

"So I guess that invalidates the work they do"

Nope. I'd say the same thing if the "model" said the Republicans were more honest. It is an absurd thing to try and quantify. It depends entirely on the sample of statements that are judged, and what constitutes a lie and what doesn't.

Paul, let me say this...it is literally impossible to be a liberal, at least in terms of economic policy, if one is honest. Absolutely impossible. Look at what the Democrats have done to our cities in the last 40 years, and tell me that liberalism hasn't been a disaster. But they won't admit it.

Look at what's going on in Chicago, where they practically re-enact the Battle Of Antietam every weekend. Those people don't deserve something different, something better? Yet if I say that, liberals call me a racist. Does that count as a lie in those surveys?

How can you begin to refute that, if you are being honest? Let's hear it!

another page of more of the same. say it enough and its got be true ...

The right has been after them since Arkansas and thats my point and haven't put bat to ball once .. so the right is incompetent and completely unable to find anything ? even the Russians and Asange assisting them ..or are the Clintons Master criminals ?

"say it enough and its got be true ... "

OK, I list factual scandals and un-true statements she made. And the best you can do to refute that, is to say it's not valid, because people say it a lot?

Just because people say it a lot, doesn't make it false, either.

In other words, you know you cannot make one syllable of what I said wrong. But like most liberals, you sure can't concede that I have a point. So you try to say my points are invalid, not because I am wrong on the facts, but because people say it enough? That's evidence that what people are saying, is un-true?

Wow.

The right has been after them since Arkansas and thats my point and haven't put bat to ball once .. ?

Bill Clinton was impeached and dis-barred. That's not "putting the bat to the ball"? Sorry, that's hitting it out of the park. What's amazing, is that his disciples don't care what he does.

lying just comes so easy to the Clintons. from the monica " the humidor" Lewinski to the I landed in a chopper under fire.

It seems like you're blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrative and you're going along with what everyone else says.

Sounds exactly like the definition of "sheeple".

"Go do a search and see how they measure the lies"

No thanks. So you're not going to do it but dismiss the studies. What is the point of discussing it then?

Nope. I'd say the same thing if the "model" said the Republicans were more honest. It is an absurd thing to try and quantify. It depends entirely on the sample of statements that are judged, and what constitutes a lie and what doesn't.Again, you haven't even attempted to look how they rank truthfullness/lies but you are dismissing it.

Paul, let me say this...it is literally impossible to be a liberal, at least in terms of economic policy, if one is honest. Absolutely impossible. Look at what the Democrats have done to our cities in the last 40 years, and tell me that liberalism hasn't been a disaster. But they won't admit it.

Look at what's going on in Chicago, where they practically re-enact the Battle Of Antietam every weekend. Those people don't deserve something different, something better? Yet if I say that, liberals call me a racistThat is the latest dog whistle of the Rep. Claim that they are called racist. Say that enough and you eventually devaluate the word.. Does that count as a lie in those surveys?

How can you begin to refute that, if you are being honest? Let's hear it!

The road to prosperity is a blue state. For the most part the poor live in the cities and the cities are blue. Blacks on average are poorer than Whites. Blue states people have better health also. I think it comes down to the people in cities knowing that Repub. have no empathy or compassion for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html

The road to prosperity is a blue state. For the most part the poor live in the cities and the cities are blue. Blacks on average are poorer than Whites. Blue states people have better health also. I think it comes down to the people in cities knowing that Repub. have no empathy or compassion for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html

Paul, when I make a claim, it's my burden to support it. You brought up the lying survey, you can provide the details if you wish. But it's absurd.

"The road to prosperity is a blue state"

Right, right. Which is why those blue states, are all facing bankruptcy. The PEOPLE can thrive in a blue state. Here in CT, we have high average incomes. That has NOTIHNG to do with politics, and everything to do with the fact that Fairfield County is very close to Manhattan, and all the investment bankers with families want to live in a nearby suburb.

"people in cities knowing that Repub. have no empathy or compassion for the poor. "

LIE! That's a lie! Does you survey count that as a lie?

I look at what is going on in our cities, controlled by liberals for 40 years, and I say they deserve better. Liberals say we need to do more of the same. And I'm the one with no empathy.

And as we have discussed, the one study done on the issue, published by the New York Times, showed that conservatives donate more time and money to charity, than liberals. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good liberal rant.

When you don't have the facts Paul, accuse me of some kind of hate. In this case, because I want to abandon the liberalism that has destroyed the poor black community, that means I lack empathy.

As I said, and as you showed more clearly than I could ever articulate, you cannot be intellectually honest and be liberal. It's not possible. The empirical evidence is there, that liberal economics is bad policy. But liberals cannot admit and process facts that don't support the narrative.

I voted for Bill Clinton, I was a card-carrying Democrat. Until I took the time to look at what liberalism actually does, rather than relying on what liberals claim that liberalism does. The reality is a tad different from the narrative.

How bad do things have to get, before you can admit the obvious?

And I voted for both Bush's until I saw what conservatism really was.

It seems like you're blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrative and you're going along with what everyone else says.

Sounds exactly like the definition of "sheeple".


not blind to anything bucko. I do not go along with with everyone says. I form my own opinions and voice them. i'm about as independent as one can be. sheeple my azz. btw - look at the guy in your mirror that's most likely a sheeple looking back at you.

And I voted for both Bush's until I saw what conservatism really was.

You have no idea what it is. You only know what the New York Times claims it is.

Paul, I live in CT, which is as blue as it gets. It's a wealthy state, and as I said, that's not a function of liberalism, it's a function of proximity to Manhattan. Our state is just about broke, thanks to liberals being in bed with labor unions. To balance the budget, did the liberals in Hartford demand that the unions give back anything? Nope. Those liberals want to stay in power, so they couldn't stand up to the unions. So they made brutal cuts to social services to the most needy people in my state, cuts to mental health, etc. Too bad that mental patients don't represent a powerful voting block. The Republicans tried to stop it, but didn't have the votes.

That's fact.

It's also fact, as I pointed out in the study called "Who Really Cares", that conservatives actually do have plenty of empathy for the poor. The study determines that conservatives actually have more empathy than liberals. But let's suffice to say that liberals don't have a monopoly on caring about the poor, and every time you claim otherwise, I will show you how demonstrably false that is. If you consider the religious practices of conservatives versus liberals, that is very understandable.

Here's what conservatism is - limited federal government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, sanctity and preciousness of all life, charity for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, letting the free market (within limits) do its thing to allow maximum upward economic mobility.

You won't hear Rachael Maddow describe conservatism that way. Because as dumb as she is, she's smart enough to know that she has nothing to gain if we have an honest discussion of what conservatism is.

George W Bush is credited with saving over one million lives in Africa, thanks to his AIDS initiatives that he led. A million lives. Did you even know about that? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama cannot claim anything even close to that. And liberals give him almost no credit, called him racist.

You have no facts, no intellectual honesty on your side, no common sense. Just insults designed to end the debate that you know you are losing.

I heard Hillary plans to appoint Anthony Weiner "Internet and Communications Czar"...he has an "impressive resume' "

I heard Hillary plans to appoint Anthony Weiner "Internet and Communications Czar"...he has an "impressive resume' "

Well, he does know how to use a cell phone....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not blind to anything bucko. I do not go along with with everyone says. I form my own opinions and voice them. i'm about as independent as one can be. sheeple my azz. btw - look at the guy in your mirror that's most likely a sheeple looking back at you.

Temper, Temper.

The road to prosperity is a blue state. ...Republicans have no empathy or compassion for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html

I grew up between New Haven and Bridgeport, CT. Two cities that have been blue as can be, for 40 years. When I was a kid, my Mom (who was a stay at home mom) used to take us to those cities all the time for a day trip, they were nice places to visit. Now, they are uninhabitable sh*tholes. Paul, if that's your idea of "prosperity", if that's your idea of empathy or compassion for the poor, then you have issues somewhere.

Liberalism is swell for people who are already wealthy. Especially for those who are wealthy, and aren't all that excited about seeing blacks prosper, perhaps (?) because they don't want to ride next to blacks on the ferry to Marthas Vineyard. Whatever the reason, if you can point to large-scale examples of liberalism leading to prosperity for large numbers of poor people (especially blacks), I would just love to see the examples you cite. Hartford? Jersey City? Baltimore? Chicago? Detroit?

Why are those cities poor? Because the prosperous people fled.

What made the prosperous people want to flee? Liberalism. These big cities have become places that are welcoming for those who don't want to work, and places that are impossible for people who do want to work. That's what liberalism does. It turns out, that philosophy is short-sighted and stupid.

and a famous weiner too

time to see what the Puffington Post has to say.........:smokin:

Bill Clinton was impeached and dis-barred. That's not "putting the bat to the ball"? Sorry, that's hitting it out of the park. What's amazing, is that his disciples don't care what he does.Well, he was acquitted from the impeachment charge and he wasn't disbarred.

Right, right. Which is why those blue states, are all facing bankruptcy.

Click here...

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/02/07/massachusetts-is-the-most-liberal-state-in-the-country-gallup-poll/

Then click here...

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/08/23/best-economy-massachusetts/

George W Bush is credited with saving over one million lives in Africa, thanks to his AIDS initiatives that he led. A million lives. Did you even know about that? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama cannot claim anything even close to that.
Oh and then click here...

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-even-her-top-aides-called-it-outrageous-unbelievable/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, he was acquitted from the impeachment charge and he wasn't disbarred.

His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10904831/ns/politics/t/bill-clinton-can-re-apply-his-lawyer-license/#.V8caJk3lvWM

I didn't say he was removed from office. I said he was impeached.

Here's one for you, Spence...when Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski under oath, was he lying? You may commence your twisting and spinning...

Oh and then click here...

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/

I applaud them, I sincerely do. I didn't see in that article however, a study which estimates how many lives were saved. Nonetheless, it's a world-class gesture.

Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation was also used to give money (via salary) and luxury to people that the Clintons saw fit to reward. I'm not sure Bush used his AIDS initiative to enrich his cronies.

Oh and then click here...

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/

Oh, I did. Massachusetts is quite blue. And you posted a study saying it has a swell economy. I guess I am completely wrong.

Hold on...what variables did your study look at, in ranking the health of the state economy? Income, OK...GDP, makes sense...unemployment, sounds fair. Hold on? No mention of debt! None at all?

Spence, do you know what a "balance sheet" is? When one looks at the health of an organization, do you think it's a good idea to only look at the left side (assets) of a balance sheet, and ignore the right side (liabilities)?

Using that approach, there was a time when this study would have concluded that Allen Iverson's economic health was far superior to mine. After all, he had more assets. Who cares about liabilities?

Here's another study, that looks at state debt per capita...Massachusetts is 3rd highest, with state+local debt per citizen, of $13,000, one spot ahead of CT. So when that debt comes due, which it will soon (it's all tied to when enough Bbay Boomers are retired and looking for fat pension checks), how healthy will that state economy be?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2016dH0C

You work in some kind of a business capacity, right? That's terrifying.

Yes sir, according to you, assets = economic health. If you have a lot of assets, that's all you need to know!

What is it with liberals, anyway? How is it, that you can convince yourself that future debt, isn't something that needs to be taken into account?

Here's one for you, Spence...when Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski under oath, was he lying?




you might recall he lied to his cabinet and defense squad and they all went out and lied for him as a result....that was nice of him

http://nypost.com/2016/09/01/tax-dollars-went-toward-clinton-foundation-email-server-report/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the the invoice have no names of those mentioned in article

not a Government office: Former presidents are provided $96,600 per year by the US government for staffing expenses. The money is spent at the discretion of the ex-president. and again nothing showing any of that money came from the 96,600 of tax payers money just all suggestive reporting

Bill Clinton has his taxpayer supported office in Hoboken and the Clinton Foundation is in NY city and Arkansas. The equipment went to the Clinton Foundation not Bills "office".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bill Clinton has his taxpayer supported office in Hoboken and the Clinton Foundation is in NY city and Arkansas. The equipment went to the Clinton Foundation not Bills "office".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The blind or maybe not so blind followers will scream " prove it beyond an unreasonable doubt " . What they call "lack of evidence " those with integrity and honesty call " lack of justice". It's been happening since he was governor .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The blind or maybe not so blind followers will scream " prove it beyond an unreasonable doubt " . What they call "lack of evidence " those with integrity and honesty call " lack of justice". It's been happening since he was governor .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You need to go all in on Vince Foster here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The blind or maybe not so blind followers will scream " prove it beyond an unreasonable doubt " . What they call "lack of evidence " those with integrity and honesty call " lack of justice". It's been happening since he was governor .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



I thought one of the many reasons America was great because people are innocent until proven Guilty ....

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems The right disagree they go with Feelings

I thought one of the many reasons America was great because people are innocent until proven Guilty ....

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems The right disagree they go with Feelings
Which is why just about all politicians are corrupt. It's so hard to convict them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought one of the many reasons America was great because people are innocent until proven Guilty ....

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems The right disagree they go with Feelings
Were the Clinton's guilty of stealing from the white house when former president and sexual predator William Jefferson Clinton left the white house?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought one of the many reasons America was great because people are innocent until proven Guilty ....

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems The right disagree they go with Feelings

Anyone else would be convicted on far less .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anyone else would be convicted on far less .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for the 39th time....I DON"T RECALL!!!!