More people think Bigfoot exists than Hillary is honest

[Starlight]

Yes, overturning Roe would be ideal, but the obsessive devotion to stare decisis by Justices of all political and ideological stripes makes that vanishingly unlikely.

Well that, and the fact that the conservatives have had a supreme court majority from Roe until now, and they didn't overturn it.

I have somewhat of an apocalyptic outlook, so I really don't think things can be "turned around."

Riiiiiight... So the fact that things are getting better over time by nearly every possible measure that can be reasonably thought of, doesn't at all intrude into your view?

My best hope is that the decline can be slowed.

Why would you want to do that given your apocalyptic worldview? Wouldn't that just delay the return of Christ?

that in regard to religion, recognizes that "free exercise" is not limited to what one does in one's own home or church (i.e., in the minds of infidels, protects my "Christian privilege")

So I'm guessing the "free exercise" of my atheism gets me no rights in your ideal world? So would I need to sign up to a fake pseudo-religion like satanism or pastafarianism or the First Church of Cannabis to get these rights?

takes a "Constitutional Carry" approach to the Second Amendment, and extends the protection beyond just firearms

The imagination runs wild... are we talking RPGs? Nukes? Katanas?

applies the Fourth Amendment more strictly to surveillance by the NSA, etc.

Finally, a point of agreement.

[Mountain Man]

You don't get it Tass- its been pointed out on many occasions how horrendously awful Trump is. They don't care- they just don't want a democrat in place who may appoint so-called liberal judges to SCOTUS.

They may think Hillary is the worst of the democrats, but I asked them which democrat they'd vote for instead and I don't believe anyone gave me a name of a current democrat they'd vote for. Coz they're democrats.

It's nice because it means they do not feel the need to defend anything he says or does, but can keep posting in anti-Hillary threads as nausiem.

I think there's maybe 2-3 actual Trump supporters on here, the rest of those voting for him are merely the NeverHillary crowd.

I would vote for a Democrat who is fair and honest, who puts the interests of America and her citizens first, who is a firm believer in and defender of the Constitution -- but I can't think of any Democrats off the top of my head who fit that description.

[Starlight]

I would vote for a Democrat who is fair and honest, who puts the interests of America and her citizens first, who is a firm believer in and defender of the Constitution -- but I can't think of any Democrats off the top of my head who fit that description.

Had Sanders won the nomination, which of those criteria would you have claimed he fails?

[EvoUK]

I would vote for a Democrat who is fair and honest, who puts the interests of America and her citizens first, who is a firm believer in and defender of the Constitution -- but I can't think of any Democrats off the top of my head who fit that description.

Case in point. Though I have no idea what an avid Breitbart fan would consider to be fair, honest & a defender of the constitution democratic candidate to look like.

[demi-conservative]

It's nice because it means they do not feel the need to defend anything he says or does, but can keep posting in anti-Hillary threads as nausiem.

Awwwwww. There there

[Mountain Man]

Had Sanders won the nomination, which of those criteria would you have claimed he fails?

A socialist, by definition, is opposed to the civil liberties and free-market guarantees enshrined in the Constitution.

[Mountain Man]

Case in point. Though I have no idea what an avid Breitbart fan would consider to be fair, honest & a defender of the constitution democratic candidate to look like.

"Fair and honest" and "defender of the Constitution" are phrases that are easily understood by anybody regardless of their political ideology. I'm not using arcane language.

[Starlight]

A socialist, by definition, is opposed to the civil liberties and free-market guarantees enshrined in the Constitution.

???!??!?!!??!!?!

I'm not using arcane language.

Um, well your statement above isn't using normal people's language.

[Mountain Man]

???!??!?!!??!!?!

Um, well your statement above isn't using normal people's language.

I honestly didn't expect someone as ignorant as you to understand, and frankly, I have neither the time, the patience, nor the inclination to try and bring you up to speed on basic free-market theory and Constitutional law. As the saying goes, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It'll waste your time, and it'll annoy the pig."

[Sparko]

[Starlight]

I honestly didn't expect someone as ignorant as you to understand, and frankly, I have neither the time, the patience, nor the inclination to try and bring you up to speed on basic free-market theory and Constitutional law.

I see, so you've got nothing at all.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm more interested in catching Seasquatch* than finding a Sasquatch.


*For those who don't know, that's the name we gave a fish we see jumping out in the middle of a nearby lake.

[rogue06]

So runs the anti Hillary narrative, but this is not the case. "Clinton rates out as the most honest candidate of the entire 2016 election. Trump, on the other hand, has been determined to be lying most of the time."

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fac...he-time/25130/

This entire fact checking shtick is basically nothing but a joke. A bunch of biased journalists playing make believe where they pretend that they are impartial fonts of truth who have appointed themselves as arbitrators of determining what is accurate.

Studies have shown that these almost always liberal journalists very carefully pick and choose what they want to "fact check" in order to draw the conclusion they want^[1]. Case in point with Hillary's honesty, they either exclude her constant, repeated lying and lying about her lying about her emails and server (saying it wasn't part of the campaign) or if they do include it count it as a single offense when it was a whole series of lies about various different aspects.

And they aren't exactly honest in their accusations of lying especially when it concerns Republicans and/or conservatives havinf to either twist what they said or offer an "interpretation of what they said to fact check (again, see footnote below). For instance when Trump said that Hillary was going to raise people's taxes Politico's "fact checkers" proclaimed that Trump was wrong because she said she won't raises taxes on households earning less than $250,000/year. Yet Hillary didWashington Post "fact checkers" gave Trump four Pinocchios for saying that the Hillary campaign pushed the birther issue.

This in spite of the fact that Patti Solis Doyle (who was Hillary's assistant during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and later became her campaign manager for Hillaryn's 2000 Senate campaign, her 2006 re-election campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign) confirmed on Twitter and later on CNN that she fired those on Hillary's staff responsible for sending emails questioning whether Obama was born in the U.S.

Around the same time James Asher, the former Washington, D.C. bureau chief for McClatchy news group (it operates 29 daily newspapers in 14 states), declared that Clinton aide and close confidante Sidney Blumenthal "told me in person" that Obama had been born in Kenya and urged him to investigate it. At the time Asher was the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.An editor for McClatchy, David Goldstein, confirms that Blumenthal was claiming that Obama was born in Kenya adding that on the strength of that they sent someone to Kenya to investigate the charge. And the person they had investigating the charge, Shashank Bengali, now a correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, has also confirmed all of this.

More recently, Larry Johnson, who runs the No Quarter USA blog, which was a staunch supporter of Hillary's in 2008 but not any longer, says that Blumenthal was the source for a lot of the negative stories about Obama that he posted on his blog (which was very popular during the 2008 campaign) including information concerning Obama not being born in the U.S.

But the Post ignored all of that because Blumenthal (who undeniably was responsible for spreading whisper campaigns about Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s) denied it. They went with someone with a well deserved reputation for being less than honest, someone well known for pushing conspiracy theories (Clinton staffers nicknamed him "Grassy Knoll" -- a reference to the most famous of the JFK conspiracy theories -- for his proclivity for them), someone despised by Obama and his people for his role in spreading rumors about Obama, and someone with a motive for once again lying through his teeth, rather than multiple witnesses that don't have a dog in this fight -- or in Doyle's case is decidedly pro-Hillary.

FactCheck.org was especially dishonest by blowing off camp Hillary's involvement off by only checking whether Hillary herself ever directly said anything about Obama being born outside the U.S. but as we've seen it wasn't her personally but rather her minions including one of her closest advisers. But they got around all that in order to come up with the conclusion they sought by only checking if Hillary herself had personally said something.

Is it really any wonder why, according to a new Rasmussen poll1. Covered before in another thread:

Something to keep in mind when bringing PolitiFact into a discussion (which started off nonpartisan but quickly veered sharply to the left). From USNews & World Report:

Source: Who�s Checking the Fact Checkers?

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



[*Emphasis at end added by rogue06*]

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Human Events

[Tassman]

This entire fact checking shtick is basically nothing but a joke. A bunch of biased journalists playing make believe where they pretend that they are impartial fonts of truth who have appointed themselves as arbitrators of determining what is accurate.

Studies have shown that these almost always liberal journalists very carefully pick and choose what they want to "fact check" in order to draw the conclusion they want

<snipped>

Oh really! And the "studies" don't show the Conservatives doing the same? Come now.

This entire rant of yours is an example of carefully picking and choosing what you "want to fact check" based upon who allegedly said what to whom. Nevertheless, despite the worst efforts by her opponents, no smoking gun has been produced regarding the various "shock/horror allegations against her...just a heap of conspiracy theories. The same cannot be said for her rival, the facts are there.

[Catholicity]

"What's the difference between UFO's and Honest Politicians?"
"Its possible that UFO's Exist"

Quite Frankly this applies to BOTH candidates

If it were up to me, we'd have a do over.