Random Political comments...

I would say im more surprised he had the internal fortitude to stand up for his family and call out Trump for his verbal attacks on them. His reasons for not endorsing trump were totally personal not policy based so no admiration from me.

 

Same here. I hate the guy and he was probably my least favorite Republican running for office this season but I have to give him some respect for standing up for his family the way he did.

 

He endorses him politically. But he allowed nasty words about his family to stop him from endorsing Trump, so he would be weak as a President. Once any angry Liberals got a nasty hold of his family, he would lose it.

 

And here is the response by the Democrats to his selfie



Opinion?

 

Well, it's far more representative of the US I would like to live in, but sadly it reminds me that the Dems have more symbolism to offer than substance, mere window-dressing. And the truth of it is that the overwhelming majority of Dem staffers and interns are white males. During my two years in the Senate, our staff was about 15% minority.

 

"POLITICS NA BIG BUSINESS"

[YOUTUBE]1ZEP1bG7B6Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

You tell us..

Fuckery Fun outside the DNC :razz:

 

The guy at the bottom (between the two bags) forgot to tie his shoe.

 

Lol at the BS meter of Hilary ^^^^^^^^^

John Hinckley Jr is being released from jail.

 

Isn't is hilarious how all those conservative Christians at the top of that list love bearing false witness so much?

 

The IRS has announced they are going to audit the Clinton Foundation because of complaints too numerous to ignore.

More info..

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen referred congressional charges of Clinton Foundation “pay-to-play” activities to his tax agency’s exempt operations office for investigation...

...One of the complainants, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, serves as the vice chairwoman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees FTC. The FTC regulates public charities alongside the IRS...

House Republicans singled out Laureate Education and Uranium One as two companies that seemed to have paid lavish sums to the Clintons and later received official government benefits.

Laureate hired former President Bill Clinton as “honorary chancellor,” paying him $16.5 million over five years.

The Baltimore-based company, which operates for-profit universities in 28 countries, also donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the foundation’s web site..."

 

Shorter: Another RWNJ taxpayer-funded witch hunt that will prove nothing (see: Benghazi, emails)

The Clintons are the most vetted politicians in history

Meanwhile we haven't seen Trump's nor Bernie's taxes, but that's OK

When will "fiscal conservatives" stop wasting the taxpayer's money?

 

Wow, Obama was nothing short of brilliant tonight.

 

Surely you aren't somehow implying that a man of Donald Trump's integrity, rationality, and sheer business acumen would ever lie about something as important as his income, are you?

Next you'll be telling me that he's an actual scam artist who's currently the defendant in multiple lawsuits or something.

 

Of course - he referred to himself 119 times.

Problem was when Hillary walked out at the end and reminded everyone that it's her running and not him.

 

He did a fantastic job pointing out the MANY successes of his administration, praising Hilary's contributions in the first four years, and promoting her for the future of the Dems. IMO the job he as done as president, has been absolutely masterful. Truly moving speech last night, and it was pure joy to see a Black man as the embodiment of intelligence, excellence, and accomplishment.

While im still not liking either Hilary or Trump as a candidate, I know for sure I will miss having President Obama sitting behind the Resolute desk.

 

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.


By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor
May 28, 2013, at 6:05 p.m.


"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP (Add the Illegal Email Server and missing Emails since)

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.


Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.


The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.


There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.

 

How reliable are fact checking sites?

http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliable-are-fact-check-sources/

"In 1920, the great American writer Walter Lippmann asserted, “There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies,” which brings us to the real importance of fact check sources.
Their strength lies in the creation of databases, many of them easily searchable, of statements and promises made by influential and powerful people. Such readily available resources are a prerequisite for journalistic and political accountability. By compiling so many statements and bringing outside and authoritative sources to bear on them, fact check sources — despite their imperfections — can aid us in preventing the threatening entrenchment of a “post-truth” political environment."

 

Since this is a thread for random political comments, I'm going to post some thoughts about the last 2 weeks.

As an aside, I could honestly give a flying fuck if anyone agrees or disagrees with what I'm about to say.

1. With the amount of articles and memes posted on MSM, Facebook/Twitter, and elsewhere for a solid week about Melania Trump's speech, you'd think she lifted her speech from the Gettysburg Address. Good God.

2. The Wikileaks email dump proving what Bernie supporters have been saying all along has not only been completely swept under the rug by Democrats, after they got rid of their sacrificial lamb (DWS - she needed to go regardless, but she shouldn't have been the ONLY ONE to get ousted after it), but is not being made into the big issue that it is by regular democrats.

WTF people? Your DNC stole the election. Stole it and all you can comment on is a few stupid lines that Melania Trump said??

And it's like that Wikileaks email dump didn't happen, because all anyone who is a democrat is talking about is making sure "Satan" (really???) doesn't get elected.

Let's completely forget that your nominee could only make it because of CHEATING.

And here is the biggest comment I have:

3. Thank you DNC for completely ruining what should have been a momentous, electrifying moment for women in this country and around the world by nominating a woman from a major party.

Instead, all it shows is that women can only get a nomination by cheating and collusion.

Thanks for nominating a woman under a huge storm cloud.

I'm embarrassed.

4. Our democracy is truly broken.

I'll end with this:

#FuckDNC #FuckHillary #NeverHillary #FuckThisElection #JillNotHill #DontBlameMeIVotedForBernie #Done

Peace out.