Where Was Obama Born? --Solved.

[ClydeR]

When Trump saw that he was tied with Clinton in national polls, he realized that it was time to seal the deal. Today he made a major announcement about Obama's birthplace. As Trump explained in his speech today, Hillary Clinton started a rumor in 2008 that Obama was not born in the United States. Trump did Obama a favor by clearing up the issue. There should never have been any doubt about where Obama was born. Shame on Hillary!





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjHPDzUOe2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjHPDzUOe2U

[Androidpk]

Hillarious that her campaign started the birther movement in 2008 to slander Obama and now they're at it again, this time to slander Trump. It's already backfiring on her. Her campaign is a mess. Staffers are resigning. Democrats need to force her to step aside or they'll destroy the party and literally hand Trump the presidency.

[time4fun]

Hillarious that her campaign started the birther movement in 2008 to slander Obama and now they're at it again, this time to slander Trump. It's already backfiring on her. Her campaign is a mess. Staffers are resigning. Democrats need to force her to step aside or they'll destroy the party and literally hand Trump the presidency.

It actually didn't (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/where-did-hillary-clinton-started-birtherism-myth-come-from). I don't know why you keep saying that.

Also, way to deflect from the fact that Trump rose to political prominence through a cynical racist strategy.

And seriously, did you just refer to the Clinton staffer resignation hoax (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-to-drop-out-twitter/)? Do you fact check anything you read?

[Androidpk]

It was started by Sidney Blumenthal. This has been confirmed.

[time4fun]

It was started by Sidney Blumenthal. This has been confirmed.

So well confirmed that he has no sources to confirm it.

Shocking.

[Gelston]

Andy Martin started it.

[Androidpk]

Katherine Krueger is a discredited left wing loon and I wouldn't trust anything from TPM.com, nothing but a bunch of clickbait articles from the alt-left.

[Androidpk]

So well confirmed that he has no sources to confirm it.

Shocking.

James Asher, former Washington bureau chief of McClatchy.

[Warriorbird]

It was absolutely pushed by Clinton's campaign. This is a deeply ineffectual "But Democrats!" when you consider the history of the movement and the role played by Donald Trump.

[Androidpk]

It was absolutely pushed by Clinton's campaign. This is a deeply ineffectual "But Democrats!" when you consider the history of the movement and the role played by Donald Trump.


But Trump!

[Dhuul2]

*SIGHS DEEPLY*

[time4fun]

It was absolutely pushed by Clinton's campaign. This is a deeply ineffectual "But Democrats!" when you consider the history of the movement and the role played by Donald Trump.

It really wasn't. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/) There were some released memos and such that showed the exact opposite- Clinton and her campaign internally agreeing never to bring up his background. Politifact does a good job of outlining some of the evidence out there.

So while I agree with the second part of your argument, I must respectfully disagree and point out that there's no evidence that the Clinton campaign ever used this line of attack. And given her years spent fighting desegregation in schools, that's not exactly surprising.

[Androidpk]

Politifact is a discredited website of the alt-left. No one but loons like you take their lies seriously.

[Warriorbird]

It really wasn't. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/) There were some released memos and such that showed the exact opposite- Clinton and her campaign internally agreeing never to bring up his background. Politifact does a good job of outlining some of the evidence out there.

So while I agree with the second part of your argument, I must respectfully disagree and point out that there's no evidence that the Clinton campaign ever used this line of attack. And given her years spent fighting desegregation in schools, that's not exactly surprising.

You falling for PK's obvious trolling aside...


According to a Telegraph article, Clinton supporters circulated the "birther" theory in an email as early as April 2008.

"Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy," the email said, according to the Telegraph. "She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth."

The allegations gained momentum that month. Clinton conceded the race on June 7, and three days later a website called Pumaparty.com (an acroynom for Party Unity My A--) encouraged Clinton backers to support Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.

The website promoted the theory with an email that read, "Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President," as Daily Beast editor John Avlon has documented.

According to Avlon, Linda Starr, a Clinton volunteer in Texas, was key to spreading the rumor. She connected with with Philip Berger, an attorney and Clinton supporter, who sued to block Obama’s nomination. The suit was thrown out.

...

Another thing to note: Clinton volunteers forwarded emails promoting the myth that Obama is a Muslim. As we have previously reported, both resigned from the campaign after they were found to have spread the rumor. The Clinton campaign condemned their actions and said it was unauthorized.

So yeah. Her people were involved early on. The "But Democrats!" involved doesn't do anything to absolve the Republican Party and Donald Trump of all their work though.

[Androidpk]

doesn't do anything to absolve the Republican Party and Donald Trump of all their work though.

I didn't forget Trump's ramblings about Obama back then. This isn't about trying to absolve him though, this is pointing out the extreme irony of Hillary's campaign bringing this up.

[Tgo01]

Hillary was so aghast that her supporters were being so mean towards Obama by suggesting he wasn't born in America that she went on national television to set the record straight that Obama is a natural born citizen and these vicious attacks should stop!

Oh, wait, no, she just kept her mouth shut and let her minions do the work for her.

Then years later brain dead morons such as time4fun sit here and say "SEE?! She herself didn't play a part in the rumors!!!"

It's fucking amazing. At least I can sit here and say Trump was a dipshit to get involved in the birther shit to begin with, I don't have such gigantic blinders on that Hillary supporters do.

The best part is people with an IQ hovering around 15, you know, like time4fun, will give Trump shit for not "denouncing" support from KKK members. So, let me get this straight, Trump has to "denounce" people that support him because of the people they choose to associate with, but Hillary doesn't have to denounce her supporters that actively call into question whether or not the first black president is even legally allowed to be president?

Yeah, clean up your fucking shit Democrats, it smells worse than anything imaginable.

[Androidpk]

The best part is people with an IQ hovering around 15, you know, like time4fun, will give Trump shit for not "denouncing" support from KKK members. So, let me get this straight, Trump has to "denounce" people that support him because of the people they choose to associate with, but Hillary doesn't have to denounce her supporters that actively call into question whether or not the first black president is even legally allowed to be president?


Hillary says Trump's deplorable supporters are sexist, racist, homophobic, ect ect.. Has she ever denounced her close ties to Saudi Arabia? The country that actively persecutes women and executes gays and lesbians?

[Candor]

Yeah it's a double standard, but that's the way the game is played. If you're going to run for public office office as a Republican and want fairness, you shouldn't be running for public office.

[Parkbandit]

Hillarious that her campaign started the birther movement in 2008 to slander Obama and now they're at it again, this time to slander Trump. It's already backfiring on her. Her campaign is a mess. Staffers are resigning. Democrats need to force her to step aside or they'll destroy the party and literally hand Trump the presidency.

Trump deserves the ridicule he gets over this issue.. Hillary didn't force him to do anything stupid, that was all him.

And Hillary was successful in switching the conversation from her ailing health, her email scandal and her "charitable" Foundation and onto this dead issue.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary says Trump's deplorable supporters are sexist, racist, homophobic, ect ect.. Has she ever denounced her close ties to Saudi Arabia? The country that actively persecutes women and executes gays and lesbians?

Why are you such an Islamaphobe? They only want to do what's right in their country.

[Androidpk]

Why are you such an Islamaphobe? They only want to do what's right in their country.

Clinton actually tried to defend what they do over there.

in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

[Latrinsorm]

Hillary was so aghast that her supporters were being so mean towards Obama by suggesting he wasn't born in America that she went on national television to set the record straight that Obama is a natural born citizen and these vicious attacks should stop!

Oh, wait, no, she just kept her mouth shut and let her minions do the work for her.

Then years later brain dead morons such as time4fun sit here and say "SEE?! She herself didn't play a part in the rumors!!!"

It's fucking amazing. At least I can sit here and say Trump was a dipshit to get involved in the birther shit to begin with, I don't have such gigantic blinders on that Hillary supporters do.

The best part is people with an IQ hovering around 15, you know, like time4fun, will give Trump shit for not "denouncing" support from KKK members. So, let me get this straight, Trump has to "denounce" people that support him because of the people they choose to associate with, but Hillary doesn't have to denounce her supporters that actively call into question whether or not the first black president is even legally allowed to be president?

Yeah, clean up your fucking shit Democrats, it smells worse than anything imaginable.Hillary both denounced and fired those supporters.

[Androidpk]

Hillary both denounced and fired those supporters.

She never denounced nor fired Sidney Blumenthal.

[time4fun]

Hillary both denounced and fired those supporters.

TGo has never let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of his conclusions.

[Androidpk]

TGo has never let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of his conclusions.

http://images.rapgenius.com/b37cae2917b7deb205c7746f8bc7e022.350x200x2.gif

[time4fun]

http://images.rapgenius.com/b37cae2917b7deb205c7746f8bc7e022.350x200x2.gif

Yeah, PK, I cite more sources in any given single post than you'll do in a whole thread. Just because you don't like that they're true, doesn't mean they aren't facts.

[Tgo01]

Hillary both denounced and fired those supporters.

She fired "supporters"? Firing someone would entail they were working for her campaign, which would suggest Hillary's campaign was behind the birther movement, which I thought the story was Hillary's campaign was NOT behind the birther movement?

Me thinks you might want to rethink this line of yours.

Also when exactly did Hillary "denounce" those supporters? Was it before or after she threw her support behind Obama in exchange for becoming Secretary of State should he win? Or hell was it after he already won?

I don't suppose you have any links?

[Androidpk]

Yeah, PK, I cite more sources in any given single post than you'll do in a whole thread. Just because you don't like that they're true, doesn't mean they aren't facts.

lolbrianfallon

[Latrinsorm]

She fired "supporters"? Firing someone would entail they were working for her campaign, which would suggest Hillary's campaign was behind the birther movement, which I thought the story was Hillary's campaign was NOT behind the birther movement?

Me thinks you might want to rethink this line of yours.

Also when exactly did Hillary "denounce" those supporters? Was it before or after she threw her support behind Obama in exchange for becoming Secretary of State should he win? Or hell was it after he already won?

I don't suppose you have any links?Hilary can't pre emptively control the human beings working for her campaign. She can't police peoples' minds. She's not Dick Cheney. What we have here is a rogue element, and since you ask her denouncement was well, well, well before (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton) the primaries were even over. She reacted as fast as was humanly possible, which is not instantaneous, because that is not physically possible.

[Gelston]

Hilary can't pre emptively control the human beings working for her campaign. She can't police peoples' minds. She's not Dick Cheney. What we have here is a rogue element, and since you ask her denouncement was well, well, well before (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton) the primaries were even over. She reacted as fast as was humanly possible, which is not instantaneous, because that is not physically possible.

So she can't control her own people. Good to know.

[time4fun]

So she can't control her own people. Good to know.

The people in question were local campaign volunteers with twitter accounts.

So no, she doesn't get to control a volunteer's twitter account.

This is really one of the more ridiculous threads you factless few have created.

[Candor]

I have always been amazed that this issue was something that deserved any attention whatsoever.

[Androidpk]

The people in question were local campaign volunteers with twitter accounts.

Wrong, it was Sidney Blumenthal.

[Tgo01]

Hilary can't pre emptively control the human beings working for her campaign. She can't police peoples' minds. She's not Dick Cheney. What we have here is a rogue element, and since you ask her denouncement was well, well, well before (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton) the primaries were even over. She reacted as fast as was humanly possible, which is not instantaneous, because that is not physically possible.

First of all your link has zero to do with the "birther" movement, rather it was about calling Obama's faith into question.

Second of all, where in that link does it say Clinton fired anyone over the incident? Honestly, I had to read the story twice to make sure I didn't miss it, but hey maybe I need to read it a third time, care to just quote the part?

Because this is what I see:


Aides for Mrs Clinton, who is fighting a last-ditch battle to keep her hopes of the White House alive, initially tried to brush off the furore, but later denied having anything to do with the distribution of the picture. "I just want to make it very clear that we were not aware of it, the campaign didn't sanction it and don't know anything about it," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters. "None of us have seen the email in question."

Yeah, sure sounds like Hillary is "denouncing" it and "firing" people.


The Clinton team hit back at the criticism today, saying Obama's team had turned the picture into a row to distract attention from a foreign policy speech she gave today.

Oh yeah! Hillary sounds so distraught over this!


Maggie Williams, campaign manager for Clinton, played down the significance of the picture. "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.

Obama should be ashamed to take offense at this photo! Yup. Hillary sure is "denouncing" her supporters and firing them.

Was this another case of you hoping I wouldn't read your link and just take your word for it?

[Jeril]

Was this another case of you hoping I wouldn't read your link and just take your word for it?

Maybe he is just trying to test your reading comprehension?

[Gelston]

The people in question were local campaign volunteers with twitter accounts.

So no, she doesn't get to control a volunteer's twitter account.

This is really one of the more ridiculous threads you factless few have created.

You trying to backtrack and call everything "ridiculous" and "factless" is always the best part.

[Androidpk]

It never happened!

It happened but it was from volunteers!

Stop being ridiculous!

[time4fun]

You trying to backtrack and call everything "ridiculous" and "factless" is always the best part.

Yeah, the PC community should be billing you, Tgo, and PK for the mountains of fact checking folks have had to do for you three in these inane threads.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, the PC community should be billing you, Tgo, and PK for the mountains of fact checking folks have had to do for you three in these inane threads.

You mean like Latrin claiming I was wrong, you instantly backing him up because you agree with him, then when I asked for proof I was wrong he came back with a link that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said?

I think it's pretty easy to tell where you get your "facts" from; anyone who shares the same opinion as you.

[Gelston]

Yeah, the PC community should be billing you, Tgo, and PK for the mountains of fact checking folks have had to do for you three in these inane threads.

You mean the random bullshit, biased links you and Latrin throw out?

[Warriorbird]

You mean like Latrin claiming I was wrong, you instantly backing him up because you agree with him, then when I asked for proof I was wrong he came back with a link that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said?

I think it's pretty easy to tell where you get your "facts" from; anyone who shares the same opinion as you.

Certain traits linger across both accounts.

[time4fun]

You mean the random bullshit, biased links you and Latrin throw out?

Like...CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, and...what else again?

You people don't even bother linking articles or facts most of the time. One of the few PK ever bothered with was Breibart.

[Gelston]

Like...CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, and...what else again?

You people don't even bother linking articles or facts most of the time. One of the few PK ever bothered with was Breibart.

Like when you completely glaze over direct quotes from Hillary, Bill, the FBI Director, Survivors of Benghazi, and everything else. Not even news sources, DIRECT quotes. Saying the EXACT opposite of what you say. You refute these direct quotes with... Bullshit opinion articles.

[Tgo01]

You people

Who you calling "you people"?

And I said Hillary Clinton did not denounce her supporters who played a role in the birther movement, you want me to prove she didn't do something? Isn't the onus on you to prove she did?

[time4fun]

Who you calling "you people"?

And I said Hillary Clinton did not denounce her supporters who played a role in the birther movement, you want me to prove she didn't do something? Isn't the onus on you to prove she did?

Go back and look at the posts you tool. I've posted at least two fact checking site articles debunking this entire claim.

You know what those are, right? Fact checking sites? You should try them sometime.

[Gelston]

Who you calling "you people"?

And I said Hillary Clinton did not denounce her supporters who played a role in the birther movement, you want me to prove she didn't do something? Isn't the onus on you to prove she did?

She's a racist.


Go back and look at the threads you tool. I've posted at least two fact checking site articles debunking this entire claim.

You know what those are, right? Fact checking sites? You should try them sometime.

And name calling. Just admited to losing.

[Tgo01]

Go back and look at the posts you tool. I've posted at least two fact checking site articles debunking this entire claim.

Can you at least TRY to pay attention here? Jesus Christ.

I didn't say Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, I said she didn't denounce her supporters who did.


You know what those are, right? Fact checking sites? You should try them sometime.

LOL at you thinking "fact checking sites" can't be biased.

I'm not normally in favor of intelligence tests before one can vote, but I'm willing to make an exception in your case.

"Fact checking sites only posts facts! It has 'fact' right in the title!"

[time4fun]

Can you at least TRY to pay attention here? Jesus Christ.

I didn't say Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, I said she didn't denounce her supporters who did.



LOL at you thinking "fact checking sites" can't be biased.

I'm not normally in favor of intelligence tests before one can vote, but I'm willing to make an exception in your case.

"Fact checking sites only posts facts! It has 'fact' right in the title!"

You know what helps? When you read the articles linked. Because the politifact article clearly demonstrates that the Clinton campaign denounced those volunteers and fired them.

And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

[Gelston]

You know what helps? When you read the articles linked. Because the politifact article clearly demonstrates that the Clinton campaign denounced those volunteers and fired them.

And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/29/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact-n2185076

http://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/liberal-tilt-politifact

http://www.weeklystandard.com/liberal-pundits-shocked-to-discover-politifact-not-always-factual/article/614522

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/03/14/mostly-true-ted-cruz-attack-proves-politifact-is-run-by-gigantic-assholes/

http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

https://winteryknight.com/2015/01/16/new-study-tampa-bay-times-politifact-fact-checker-is-biased-against-republicans/

https://www.quora.com/Is-PolitiFact-liberally-biased

[Warriorbird]

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/29/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact-n2185076

http://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/liberal-tilt-politifact

http://www.weeklystandard.com/liberal-pundits-shocked-to-discover-politifact-not-always-factual/article/614522

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/03/14/mostly-true-ted-cruz-attack-proves-politifact-is-run-by-gigantic-assholes/

http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

https://winteryknight.com/2015/01/16/new-study-tampa-bay-times-politifact-fact-checker-is-biased-against-republicans/

https://www.quora.com/Is-PolitiFact-liberally-biased

Only two out of that list aren't considered extraordinarily biased as a general note. One of those two just features random user comments. The other of those two is a blog by a Republican on a site that's traditionally considered not so biased.

[Gelston]

Only two out of that list aren't considered extraordinarily biased as a general note.

I was just going off google. Hey, found TWO that you don't consider biased... So it is a fact then, Politifact is Biased.

[Warriorbird]

I was just going off google. Hey, found TWO that you don't consider biased... So it is a fact then, Politifact is Biased.

I updated. One's a blog (about a study with major accusations of Republican bias) and the other is upvoted user comments. Tells you the perils of Google more than anything.

Bias is everywhere. People have to be aware of it in most mediums and figure stuff out for themselves. Sadly... most folks aren't and don't.

[Gelston]

I updated. One's a blog and the other is upvoted user comments. Tells you the perils of Google more than anything.

There are about 300,000 other results I can post too. I think I'll just start following time4fun's example and toss up 5463456 hyperlinks to shit though when I make an argument.

Now go read about gay terrorism in the other thread.

[Warriorbird]

There are about 300,000 other results I can post too. I think I'll just start following time4fun's example and toss up 5463456 hyperlinks to shit though when I make an argument.

Now go read about gay terrorism in the other thread.

Eh. I think I was with you more when you were commenting on the pointlessness of most of us saying anything to each other.

I'll check out the gay terrorism but I'm more concerned with stupid Charlottesville explosions making my Internet slow.

[Tgo01]

You know what helps? When you read the articles linked. Because the politifact article clearly demonstrates that the Clinton campaign denounced those volunteers and fired them.

I actually read your Politifact link and didn't see any mention of this, but I went through this entire thread to check every link you have provided.

Here is what I found from the http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/where-did-hillary-clinton-started-birtherism-myth-come-from link:


A March 2007 memo obtained by Bloomberg, which is often erroneously regarded as a smoking gun, showed Clinton's then-chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, make the case for attacking Obama’s “limited” relationship with American values because of his upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia.


Poking holes in Obama's American identity, however vile a tactic, is not the same as suggesting someone is not a natural-born American citizen. The memo contained no reference to Obama's citizenship, and Clinton did not pursue the strategy that Penn outlined. Penn was fired from the campaign in April 2008.

First of all it doesn't say Penn was fired for his memo. Second of all this is not the birther movement.


By December of that year, Rose had resigned over the controversy. Another volunteer in a different county also resigned for forwarding a similar message, according to Politifact.

Resigned, not fired.


Clinton’s top staffer, Maggie Williams, initially said Obama’s campaign should be “ashamed” for being up in arms about the photo without denying that staffers had circulated the image

So much firing going on!

As far as I can tell the Snopes link is about something entirely different, let me know if it's not.

And for the PolitiFact link, this is what I see:


(Another thing to note: Clinton volunteers forwarded emails promoting the myth that Obama is a Muslim. As we have previously reported, both resigned from the campaign after they were found to have spread the rumor. The Clinton campaign condemned their actions and said it was unauthorized.)

Yes, condemned the accusations that Obama is a Muslim. Oh and once again, they resigned.

Have any other links you would care to share?


And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

Whatever helps you feel better about your misguided beliefs.

[Androidpk]

I post one link from Breitbard and time4fun loses her shit. I should link to them more often.

[Parkbandit]

You know what helps? When you read the articles linked. Because the politifact article clearly demonstrates that the Clinton campaign denounced those volunteers and fired them.

And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

It's funny how you believe Politifact is the end all be all of unbiased reporting... from the Tampa Times, which is left of the New York Times.

And before you say "Derp, derp do you even read that paper" yes I do since it's the only newspaper in Tampa now.

You are willfully ignorant, painfully naive and an IQ that matches your shoe size.. the perfect voter for Hillary Clinton.

[Fallen]

You guys need to come up with a list of sources you will universally admit as valid.

[Warriorbird]

You guys need to come up with a list of sources you will universally admit as valid.

I don't consider this particularly likely. One of the reasons this doesn't work well.

[Tgo01]

You guys need to come up with a list of sources you will universally admit as valid.

I'll usually consider any source, as long as the source actually backs up their stories with outside links or direct quotes or something.

I remember one time someone posted a link to a story and that story had a bunch of links as well, but those links ultimately just linked to other "stories" on the same website. In other words their "sources" were themselves. It would be like someone saying "Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Source? Me."

I tend to call bullshit on stories that are basically just opinions disguised as facts.

I also realize that bias is possible even if a site isn't necessarily lying.

Like time4fun claiming Politifact can't be biased because they just discuss facts. It has "facts" right in the name!

It's very easy for Politifact to be biased, even if we assume they tell the truth 100% of the time.

How? Simple. Don't run stories on Democrats that they know are true and would make the Democrat look bad. Go out of their way to find stories that would make Republicans look bad. Spread out negative stories about Democrats among a greater number of Democrats than Republicans.

Like for example if one were to say "Politifact isn't biased because they ran 100 negative stories about Democrats and 100 about Republicans" yet only 15 of those stories are about Hillary and 50 are about Trump then it's obvious they are attempting to make Trump look worse in comparison to Hillary.

[Fallen]

That's true, TG01, but it also wouldn't invalidate the points being made by the publication at the time. I do agree that Polifact may be guilty of that type of bias.

It seems that without being able to consider the merits of a source without immediately dismissing it as bias, trying to have a debate grounded in fact is next to impossible. One will simply look to discredit the source, regardless of topic at hand, if they don't like what it has to say.

[Tgo01]

It seems that without being able to consider the merits of a source without immediately dismissing it as bias, trying to have a debate grounded in fact is next to impossible. One will simply look to discredit the source, regardless of topic at hand, if they don't like what it has to say.

Of course sometimes it should just be obvious that the bias would invalidate anything the person/article has to say, even if the person/article is 100% telling the truth, the bias can't be ignored.

For example, in an attempt to defend the Clinton Foundation as not being corrupt, one would like to the Clinton Foundation's website as proof.

Or, I don't know, relying on Clinton's campaign manager to defend Hillary about any negative stories about her.

Sure, maybe the website/campaign manager are actually telling the truth, but it's kind of hard to believe that just going by the source.

[Gelston]

That's true, TG01, but it also wouldn't invalidate the points being made by the publication at the time. I do agree that Polifact may be guilty of that type of bias.

It seems that without being able to consider the merits of a source without immediately dismissing it as bias, trying to have a debate grounded in fact is next to impossible. One will simply look to discredit the source, regardless of topic at hand, if they don't like what it has to say.

This is the internet. There are no debates here. Just two parties furiously typing at one another.

[Androidpk]

I don't often agree with Tgo but when I do it's because I'm right.

[Fallen]

Of course sometimes it should just be obvious that the bias would invalidate anything the person/article has to say, even if the person/article is 100% telling the truth, the bias can't be ignored.

For example, in an attempt to defend the Clinton Foundation as not being corrupt, one would like to the Clinton Foundation's website as proof.

Or, I don't know, relying on Clinton's campaign manager to defend Hillary about any negative stories about her.

Sure, maybe the website/campaign manager are actually telling the truth, but it's kind of hard to believe that just going by the source.

I would agree that posting something from a website who's organization who are saying is corrupt isn't a good idea. However, in your response in the other thread to the source "https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/" you simply called into question the data by saying they could have covered it up, or in the case of Jarvan saying, though I would imagine while being tongue-in-cheek, that a different source was likely under some sort of threat.

Isn't that simply dismissing a source because the data disagreed with your point?

[Fallen]

For the record, I don't have any specific opinions on the Clinton Foundation. I assume there's some level of corruption, just as I would in the other candidate's charities at this level of politics. Tit-for-tat charities also seem like less of an issue in an era of Super PACs.

[time4fun]

I'll usually consider any source, as long as the source actually backs up their stories with outside links or direct quotes or something.

I remember one time someone posted a link to a story and that story had a bunch of links as well, but those links ultimately just linked to other "stories" on the same website. In other words their "sources" were themselves. It would be like someone saying "Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Source? Me."

I tend to call bullshit on stories that are basically just opinions disguised as facts.

I also realize that bias is possible even if a site isn't necessarily lying.

Like time4fun claiming Politifact can't be biased because they just discuss facts. It has "facts" right in the name!

It's very easy for Politifact to be biased, even if we assume they tell the truth 100% of the time.

How? Simple. Don't run stories on Democrats that they know are true and would make the Democrat look bad. Go out of their way to find stories that would make Republicans look bad. Spread out negative stories about Democrats among a greater number of Democrats than Republicans.

Like for example if one were to say "Politifact isn't biased because they ran 100 negative stories about Democrats and 100 about Republicans" yet only 15 of those stories are about Hillary and 50 are about Trump then it's obvious they are attempting to make Trump look worse in comparison to Hillary.


I have never argued that Politfact can't be biased because it claims to deal in "facts", and if that's your interpretation of why I stand by Politifact, then you are guilty of the reductive thinking that you condemn.

Politifact is an extremely credible source that is routinely used by other credible news sites. Truth be told, Politifact's evaluations are rarely contested, and there have been a few third party studies on its validity/bias that have found nothing inherently wrong with its findings. There are two claims of bias that have any real evidence behind them:

1) That Politifact evaluates "Pants on fire" statements from GOP figures more often than Dem figures. Note- that the criticism here isn't that Politifact's rulings of Pants on Fire are inaccurate, it's that 3/4 of those rulings come from the GOP. So you either have to believe the GOP deals in more of those statements than the left (which you can't dismiss given the prevalence of conspiracy theories rampant on the right over the last decade or so), or that it's selecting more egregious GOP statements than egregious Dem statements. Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean that when Politifact issues a ruling that it's an inaccurate ruling. I believe this is the conclusion that the University of MN (Or maybe it was Ann Arbor? I forget) came to.

2) The Politifact, in general, focuses on political statements over policy statements. And that's definitely true. It cares about partisan politics, not about evaluating whether or not a particular policy is sound. This, again, in no way questions PF's rulings. It just means it's not the place you go to if you want to figure out which tax plan is better. It's the place you go to if you want to know if what the Dems are saying about the GOP tax plan is actually true.


But there are sources out there that are a regular font of misinformation. For one, no one should be quoting Breibart. Ever. It's been heavily criticized for publishing factually incorrect statements, and it also bills itself as the home of the Alt-Right- which is fundamentally a collection of white nationalist thought leaders. Breibart's rampantly antisemitic and nativist history is something that any normal human being should be deeply ashamed of regurgitating. It's not even just that they play fast and loose with the truth, but it's also the agenda their articles are often written to advance.

The right wing blogosphere is generally a place you should avoid for objective, factual reporting. (Same goes with the left wing blogosphere- hell, I normally won't even link Huff Post unless they did original research that's being taken seriously by other outlets) And you can tell that's where people like PK are getting their "information", which is rarely vetted and so often twisted.

On the other hand, sites like Media Matters, or organizations like Judicial Watch, which often just aggregate other news sites, can be useful, as long as you aren't taking their analysis at face value and, instead, are just using the aggregation to find original sourcing.

The thing that you have to remember is that these far left and far right sites routinely make up stories and "evidence" that suits their objectives. Fake twitter posts, inaccurate reporting on "leaked" evidence or "nameless sources" are routine on both sides. You can't take that as objective fact, and if you do, you're just falling into confirmation bias. And we've seen a lot of that in this politics folder. Too much for comfort.

And the fact that several folks in this thread have listed CNN, NY Times, and Politico as "biased news sites" is also very telling. If you're living in a world where CNN is "biased" "not credible" news site, then you're in trouble. That's not to say that the CNN of today is as high quality as it was before the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, but if you think CNN is lower quality news org than, say, some crazy right wing blog- you're no longer living in reality.

[Tgo01]

Isn't that simply dismissing a source because the data disagreed with your point?

As I said in that post, I already looked at the actual numbers and arrived at my own conclusion that something stinks.

I didn't have time at that point to find my other post in regards to this but I went ahead and found it just now.

Here are my previous posts on this as to why I think something doesn't look right and I don't buy the Clinton Foundation is legit simply because they were supposedly audited.


The whole thing is a joke.

The foundation had 148,889,439 dollars in revenue yet they only spent 84,684,494 dollars.

~22 million dollars in wages yet supposedly 16.5 million of that was "program services" and another 2.1 million was "fundraising expenses."

3.7 million dollars in "other employee benefits" and 2.7 million of that was "program services."

4.7 million in office expenses and 4 million of that was "program services."

4 million dollars in "occupancy" (whatever the fuck that means) and 3 million of that was "program services."

8.4 million was travel and 6.4 million of that was "program services."

9.2 million in conferences and 8.9 million of that was "program services." 8.9 million dollars spent on conferences for "program services"!

4.7 million dollars to "depreciation" and 4.3 million of that was "program services."

One of my favorites:

2.5 million to "other" expenses and 2.2 million of that to "program services."

And my absolute favorite, line 11 G reads: "Other (If line 11G amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list 11g expenses on Schedule O)

In other words if you're claiming more than 10% of your expenses as "Other" (this somehow means other than the "OTHER EXPENSES" you wrote out in line 24 yourself) then you have to list all of the "other" expenses you are claiming on Schedule O.

So they have 8.1 million dollars listed on line 11 G which is, drum roll please! 9.6% of line 25 column A. What are the fucking chances? So now they don't have to list what the "other" expenses are on Schedule O so of course, they didn't.

Oh and let's not forget that 6.1 million of those "other" expenses is "program service expenses."

I look at this shit and think "Well that all sounds vague and shady as fuck."

Charity Watch looks at that shit and concludes "Sounds legit to us. A rating!"


Just for shits and giggles I looked at another charity "Charity Watch" said was similar to the Clinton Foundation to see how it compares.

Keep in mind this charity only received a B+.

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Total revenue 1.8 million, total money spent 2.2 million dollars.

Yes, the charity actually spent more money than they received in a single year, they didn't stash ~60 million dollars in the bank.

I'll admit their wages and other employee benefits look pretty similar compared to the Clinton Foundation, percentage wise that is.

But their "other" expenses was 19% rather than just squeaking under the 10% threshold.

They have only 236k in "occupancy" expenses but all of that is listed as management and general expenses, in other words overhead.

Only about half of their "travel" expenses is listed as "program services", not only that but their travel expenses was only about 1% of the money they spent, compared to Hillary's which was 10%.

Only about 1% of their revenue was spent on office expenses which they admit almost all was overhead, compared to Hillary's ~6% total amount spent and almost all of it was supposed for "program services."

Now to be fair this charity has 100% of their "conferences" listed as as "program services", but they only spent .2% of their total revenue on conferences, as opposed to Hillary's ~11%.

They have .7% spent on depreciation which they count all of it as overhead expenses, Hillary has ~6% to depreciation and almost all of it towards "program services."

This charity doesn't list 9.6% in the form's "other" category then have the audacity to write in another "other" category for 3% of their total money spent.

How anyone can look at this tax form and honestly say "Yeah, looks legit to us. A rating!" is beyond me.

This is all kinds of shady and wrong to even a layperson.

Oh but right, she's a woman and running for president as a Democrat, we let her get away with this shit.

Shit. A charity that actually spends more money than they raise in a single year gets a B+ rating, the Clinton Foundation spends ~57% of the money they raise in a single year, much of which goes towards conferences, travel, "other", and "more other" expenses gets an A rating.

Sounds legit to me!

[Warriorbird]

For the record, I don't have any specific opinions on the Clinton Foundation. I assume there's some level of corruption, just as I would in the other candidate's charities at this level of politics. Tit-for-tat charities also seem like less of an issue in an era of Super PACs.

I think you were right about suggesting a list of agreed upon sources and I was right to suggest that nobody would be able/willing to make one.

[Tgo01]

I have never argued that Politfact can't be biased because it claims to deal in "facts", and if that's your interpretation of why I stand by Politifact, then you are guilty of the reductive thinking that you condemn.


And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

Right.


Politifact is an extremely credible source that is routinely used by other credible news sites. Truth be told, Politifact's evaluations are rarely contested, and there have been a few third party studies on its validity/bias that have found nothing inherently wrong with its findings.


I have never argued that Politfact can't be biased because it claims to deal in "facts", and if that's your interpretation of why I stand by Politifact, then you are guilty of the reductive thinking that you condemn.


And just because fact checking sites like politifact show evidence for why half of what you believe is based on nothing doesn't make them biased. Bias and inconvenience are not the same thing.

Right.


1) That Politifact evaluates "Pants on fire" statements from GOP figures more often than Dem figures.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me of their "truth" scale, this one is just blatantly obvious in their bias. I remember reading one of their stories, I forget which Democrat it was, I want to say it was Obama. Whatever. But Politifact flat out admitted everything said wasn't true yet still rated the comment "half true" and they didn't even fucking explain why they considered it "half true" instead of "Pants on fire!"


For one, no one should be quoting Breibart. Ever. It's been heavily criticized for publishing factually incorrect statements

By whom, Politifact?


it also bills itself as the home of the Alt-Right- which is fundamentally a collection of white nationalist thought leaders.

RACISM! RACISM! RRRAAACCCIIISSSMMM!!!!!


Breibart's rampantly antisemitic and nativist history is something that any normal human being should be deeply ashamed of regurgitating. It's not even just that they play fast and loose with the truth, but it's also the agenda their articles are often written to advance.

Do you even realize how ridiculous you are sounding right now?


The right wing blogosphere is generally a place you should avoid for objective, factual reporting. (Same goes with the left wing blogosphere- hell, I normally won't even link Huff Post unless they did original research that's being taken seriously by other outlets) And you can tell that's where people like PK are getting their "information", which is rarely vetted and so often twisted.

I was about ready to give you some serious credit here, until I Read your next sentence.


On the other hand, sites like Media Matters, or organizations like Judicial Watch, which often just aggregate other news sites, can be useful, as long as you aren't taking their analysis at face value and, instead, are just using the aggregation to find original sourcing.

lol at Media Matters. Why would you even suggest this if you go on to say "Just read the original sources." Why wouldn't I just read the original sources then and skip the bias as fuck Media Matters?


If you're living in a world where CNN is "biased" "not credible" news site, then you're in trouble.

Wait wait wait, why can't CNN be biased? Because they're on cable? So is Fox News, I have a strange feeling though that Fox News is on your "no no" list as well. I can't help but notice your "no no list" seems to tilt largely towards the right.

[time4fun]

As I said in that post, I already looked at the actual numbers and arrived at my own conclusion that something stinks.

I didn't have time at that point to find my other post in regards to this but I went ahead and found it just now.

Here are my previous posts on this as to why I think something doesn't look right and I don't buy the Clinton Foundation is legit simply because they were supposedly audited.

Yes, but Tgo look at how you represented those numbers:

"program services"

"travel"

You walked in assuming something was wrong, and you saw little devils everywhere you looked. That's the problem here. You decided in advance something was fishy, and you "found" it in any and all ambiguity.

I realize that things have become politically twisted for campaign purposes, but you have to understand that the Clinton Foundation was beyond reproach up until people realized Clinton was going to run for office. And while you question what they do, even the actual (insane) Schwartz complaints took for granted that the Foundation was doing great work. The argument was (inexplicably) that Clinton was selling State Department access to increase access to AIDS drugs and to introduce reading curriculum to poor areas of the world. (Pay To Play never made any sense- none of the Clintons receive a penny from the Foundation).

The fact that you took those (largely debunked) complaints Schqartz lodged and decided it must mean that the Clinton foundation is nothing but a front is you going WAY beyond anything anyone who knows about the Foundation has claimed. (On both sides, by the way)

It's not a front, and the work it has done has been well documented and is life saving. This "scandal" is just a political maneuver that, unfortunately, worked.

[Androidpk]

On the other hand, sites like Media Matters..

Yeah, lets use David Brock's org as a valid source, the guy who has been a Clinton attack dog for decades. :jerkit:

[Tgo01]

Yes, but Tgo look at how you represented those numbers:

"program services"

"travel"

Am I misunderstanding something? Does "program services" not indicate the money went towards, you know, program services? In other words not overhead but money spent on actual charity work?


You walked in assuming something was wrong, and you saw little devils everywhere you looked. That's the problem here. You decided in advance something was fishy, and you "found" it in any and all ambiguity.

You're right, that's why I checked out a similar charity and found that charity to look more like what I would expect, ie 1% spent on travel expenses and not 10%.

[time4fun]

Right.







Right.



Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me of their "truth" scale, this one is just blatantly obvious in their bias. I remember reading one of their stories, I forget which Democrat it was, I want to say it was Obama. Whatever. But Politifact flat out admitted everything said wasn't true yet still rated the comment "half true" and they didn't even fucking explain why they considered it "half true" instead of "Pants on fire!"



By whom, Politifact?



RACISM! RACISM! RRRAAACCCIIISSSMMM!!!!!



Do you even realize how ridiculous you are sounding right now?



I was about ready to give you some serious credit here, until I Read your next sentence.



lol at Media Matters. Why would you even suggest this if you go on to say "Just read the original sources." Why wouldn't I just read the original sources then and skip the bias as fuck Media Matters?



Wait wait wait, why can't CNN be biased? Because they're on cable? So is Fox News, I have a strange feeling though that Fox News is on your "no no" list as well. I can't help but notice your "no no list" seems to tilt largely towards the right.

I don't think you actually understand Breibart. I honestly don't.

Here are some article titles for you to mull over:

RACE MURDER IN VIRGINIA: BLACK REPORTER SUSPECTED OF EXECUTING WHITE COLLEAGUES- ON LIVE TELEVISION (https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/screen_shot_2015-08-26_at_11.02.52_am.png)

BILL KRISTOL: REPUBLICAN SPOILER AND RENEGADE JEW (http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/05/cijebnpuyaangrl.jpg?itok=P1Sho8EU)

HOIST HIGH AND PROUD: THE CONFEDERATE FLAG PROCLAIMS A GLORIOUS HERITAGE (http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-25-at-4.26.49-PM.jpg)

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES WOMEN UNATTRACTIVE AND CRAZY (http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-25-at-4.26.49-PM.jpg)

Fun article title with a swastica on a rainbow flag (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACcUf4kQLZPQoIjii0yVPFVFXVBxz9DPVQFa2fot kU1F-1RKmCgKNg-glD6EM925Z4WWfiGrFLOY9wBKUJrTpp7XwiCoSCaLTJU8VUVdU EdMyMlUghtX5KhIJHHP0M9VAVrYRETuaHtmqvu0qEgl-i2RTUX7VEhFnuIPI-s70fSoSCaYKAo2D6CUPEVWSMAEzHCI-KhIJoQz3blnhZZ8RVCUjBjknkOAqEgmIasUs5j3AEhFD35yuNI hDhCoSCZQmtOmntfCIEVKbKgc21L1P&q&bih=551&biw=1097&ved=0ahUKEwjLkdGIyZzPAhUG4YMKHa6FCWMQ9C8ICQ&dpr=1.75#tbm=isch&q=breibart+racist+headlines&imgdii=w2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A%3Bw2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A%3BiUM 6OTIQ5UdlLM%3A&imgrc=w2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A)

I could keep going, but the damming part is Bannon telling Mother Jones that they're the platform of the alt-right. That matters. You can decry it all you want, but the alt-right describes itself as nativist and white nationalist. Here's a snippet from their recent conference (the comments are telling too) Check out right at the one hour mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJWLjRK2SRo

[Androidpk]

Let's take a look at how the Clinton's save lives..

Structurally unsafe and laced with formaldehyde, the "hurricane-proof" classroom trailers installed by the Clinton Foundation in Haiti came from the same company being sued for sickening Hurricane Katrina victims.

https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/

[time4fun]

Am I misunderstanding something? Does "program services" not indicate the money went towards, you know, program services? In other words not overhead but money spent on actual charity work?



You're right, that's why I checked out a similar charity and found that charity to look more like what I would expect, ie 1% spent on travel expenses and not 10%.

Tgo- the Clinton Foundation is a GLOBAL network of programs that span across 180 countries. There is nothing suspicious about the travel budget.

[time4fun]

Let's take a look at how the Clinton's save lives..

Structurally unsafe and laced with formaldehyde, the "hurricane-proof" classroom trailers installed by the Clinton Foundation in Haiti came from the same company being sued for sickening Hurricane Katrina victims.

https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/


PK- the Clinton Foundation is NOT the Clintons. Leaving aside what a bizarre response that was, you keep conflating two things that you can't conflate. This isn't their private foundation, it's a giant public foundation that does massive amounts of work. The Clintons have been a part of the board at various parts of their lives, but that's the extent of the relationship. There are plenty of people on the board. And tons of people on payroll across the globe. Their name being on it does not mean that they run the foundation. They help run it at an extremely high level (HRC wasn't even on the board while at the State Department, btw), along with a dozen or so other people. That's it.

[Androidpk]

PK- the Clinton Foundation is NOT the Clintons. Leaving aside what a bizarre response that was, you keep conflating two things that you can't conflate. This isn't their private foundation, it's a giant public foundation that does massive amounts of work. The Clintons have been a part of the board at various parts of their lives, but that's the extent of the relationship. There are plenty of people on the board. And tons of people on payroll across the globe. Their name being on it does not mean that they run the foundation. They help run it at an extremely high level (HRC wasn't even on the board while at the State Department, btw), along with a dozen or so other people. That's it.

Here you have it folks, time4fun has become completely unhinged from reality.

[Tgo01]

RACE MURDER IN VIRGINIA: BLACK REPORTER SUSPECTED OF EXECUTING WHITE COLLEAGUES- ON LIVE TELEVISION (https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/screen_shot_2015-08-26_at_11.02.52_am.png)

Uh...didn't a black reporter kill his white colleagues on live television?


BIRTH CONTROL MAKES WOMEN UNATTRACTIVE AND CRAZY (http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-25-at-4.26.49-PM.jpg)

I'd be interested to actually read the story to see what they are referring to.



Fun article title with a swastica on a rainbow flag (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACcUf4kQLZPQoIjii0yVPFVFXVBxz9DPVQFa2fot kU1F-1RKmCgKNg-glD6EM925Z4WWfiGrFLOY9wBKUJrTpp7XwiCoSCaLTJU8VUVdU EdMyMlUghtX5KhIJHHP0M9VAVrYRETuaHtmqvu0qEgl-i2RTUX7VEhFnuIPI-s70fSoSCaYKAo2D6CUPEVWSMAEzHCI-KhIJoQz3blnhZZ8RVCUjBjknkOAqEgmIasUs5j3AEhFD35yuNI hDhCoSCZQmtOmntfCIEVKbKgc21L1P&q&bih=551&biw=1097&ved=0ahUKEwjLkdGIyZzPAhUG4YMKHa6FCWMQ9C8ICQ&dpr=1.75#tbm=isch&q=breibart+racist+headlines&imgdii=w2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A%3Bw2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A%3BiUM 6OTIQ5UdlLM%3A&imgrc=w2M0V9FK0sz1sM%3A)

Yeah they are saying Planned Parenthood has killed half as many <fetuses/embryo/parasites/whatever term Democrats refer to them to feel better about abortion> as the Holocaust did.

Yes, the headlines are obviously inflammatory and clickbaity, but you said they have been "heavily criticized for publishing factually incorrect statements". Mean and factually incorrect are not the same thing.

[time4fun]

Here you have it folks, time4fun has become completely unhinged from reality.

I...don't think you actually understand how public charities work. You do understand that no Clinton has chaired the Foundation in many, many years, right? Not since at least 2004. Maybe longer.

Do you actually know what the organizational structure of the Foundation is?

I get the impression you all think that the Clinton foundation is a small office of 5 people, 3 of whom are Clintons, sitting around on piles of money. I suggest you go read up a bit more on it. There's actually a solid tradition of outgoing US Presidents creating charitable foundations. Bill was just the next in line to do so. But rarely have these foundations been so successful.

And a lot of lives have been saved because of it. You're so busy trying to find phantom wrongdoing that you're missing the real point here. $2b in critical programs over the years = a lot of people better off. Your spin on things shows a deep lack of respect for the lives that exist today because the Foundation exists.

[Tgo01]

Tgo- the Clinton Foundation is a GLOBAL network of programs that span across 180 countries. There is nothing suspicious about the travel budget.

The American Red Cross is a GLOBAL charity as well operating in 187 countries, their revenue is something like 50 times greater than the Clinton Foundation, and yet they still managed to only spend about 3% of their revenue on travel.

American Red Cross managed to only spend about 4% of their revenue on office expenses, compared to Hillary's 6%.

[Androidpk]

You do understand that no Clinton has chaired the Foundation in many, many years, right? Not since at least 2004. Maybe longer.


Chelsea Clinton is the vice chair and Bill is on the board of directors. Hillary's closest aids to her at the State Department were on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. Hell the Foundation used the same damn server that Hillary was using for her Secretary of State business. Tell me again how there's such a huge disconnect from the Clintons and the foundation.

[Androidpk]

The one time I've posted a Breitbart article it linked directly to a State Department website with legitimate State Department source documents, and time4fun went nuts.

[time4fun]

Chelsea Clinton is the vice chair and Bill is on the board of directors. Hillary's closest aids to her at the State Department were on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. Hell the Foundation used the same damn server that Hillary was using for her Secretary of State business. Tell me again how there's such a huge disconnect from the Clintons and the foundation.

Chelsea is the Vice Chair of the *board*, she's not actually a part of the Foundation's leadership team- she's not the President or one of the CEOs of the specific program wings. I trust you understand the difference. And she wasn't even that until 2013- which was after HRC had left the State Dept, btw.

And this whole notion of HRC State Department cronies being involved is silly. "Her closest aids to her". Can you provide a list? I'm genuinely interested to know.

Certainly I'm sure that there was some overlap- if I were going to leave people in charge of a Foundation I founded, you bet I'd want people I knew for a fact were good. Which is invariably why the H&HS Secretary under Bill Clinton is now running the foundation. Because that' as good a pedigree as you're going to get- not any evidence of any corruption.

As far as the notion that they used the same server for the Foundation- can you come up with a credible news source that argues as such? I've only found Breibart or people quoting Breibart. All evidence I've seen points to separate servers.

And all of this is just more desperate need to find evidence- even the most circumstantial- of wrongdoing. But there is no real evidence here. There's no smoking gun email that shows people both requesting AND getting any kind of favors. There was no pay involved for the Clintons- they were never on the payroll.

At some point in time you've just got to stop and admit- tens of thousands of emails have been poured over and studied. If there were some evidence of wrongdoing- we'd know by now. You're jumping at shadows for no reason. You want there to be something sinister. But you're engaged in insanely circular reasoning.

"This MUST be evidence of corruption because I know they're corrupt!"

[Androidpk]

Wow, you've either been willfully ignoring everything going on over the past year or you're straight up trolling us all. Either way I have no more time for your stupid bullshit.

[Fallen]

The one time I've posted a Breitbart article it linked directly to a State Department website with legitimate State Department source documents, and time4fun went nuts.

It's easy to see certain websites pop up and immediately dismiss them out of hand. I've done it myself. Breitbart has obvious political leanings, but that doesn't mean it should be outright ignored without examining what's printed at face value. I think it's something we're all guilty of at one point or another in this age of hyper politics and journalism.

[time4fun]

The one time I've posted a Breitbart article it linked directly to a State Department website with legitimate State Department source documents, and time4fun went nuts.

Yes but PK, you constantly quote heavily debunked "facts" that come straight from Breibart. You're right that you only *cited* Breibart a few times (it was more than once), but you also rarely cite your "facts". So while you don't often cite Breibart, you are constantly referencing it.

And at some point in time you're going to need to take a good long look at why you've so consistently been off base with Clinton. You were so convinced that she was headed for Prison- you believed it with all of your heart. Even though all evidence suggested that she hadn't actually violated any laws.

And, at some point, you're going to realize how insanely off base you are regarding the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer himself said he had no actual evidence of pay to play, which is why so many publications ended up retracting articles initially written about his book. He cited deals that had started years before Clinton showed up. He also cited meetings Clinton had with Foundation donors who had met with her predecessors too. No one takes him seriously because it turns out that his "facts" were largely ridiculous.

And at some point, you're going to have to point the finger of blame at your "news" sources, instead of some vast underground network of corruption that has taken hold of everyone and everything. What you have been ingesting isn't news. It's politically motivated conspiracy theory garbage from sites that have a genuine agenda that trumps their dedication to objective, fact-based journalism.

Everyone here knows you read Breibart. Probably every day.

And everyone but you- even other conservatives on this forum- understands that's a big part of why virtually every political prediction you make is wrong.

[Androidpk]

It's easy to see certain websites pop up and immediately dismiss them out of hand. I've done it myself. Breitbart has obvious political leanings, but that doesn't mean it should be outright ignored without examining what's printed at face value. I think it's something we're all guilty of at one point or another in this age of hyper politics and journalism.

There is no doubt that Breitbart obviously leans right. Just like Fox, Drudge and other conservative news outlets. Like you said though, that's no reason to ignore them outright without digging into what they said, checking out their sources, using some critical thinking.

[time4fun]

It's easy to see certain websites pop up and immediately dismiss them out of hand. I've done it myself. Breitbart has obvious political leanings, but that doesn't mean it should be outright ignored without examining what's printed at face value. I think it's something we're all guilty of at one point or another in this age of hyper politics and journalism.

In fairness here Fallen, Breibart has been lambasted repeatedly for fake evidence and information. This isn't a Fox News or MSNBC situation, where the editorial layer over the facts tries to sway you towards particular interpretations. This is a publication that got its start by posting a fake video about ACORN that was later heavily debunked. They helped spread the myth that Clinton was giving away CIA names (helped by Goudy, of course).

There's bias, and then there's a passing acquaintance with the truth. Breibart is borderline yellow journalism with political speak on top. And, again, it has heralded itself as the home of a movement of political white nationalists. We don't need to treat every news source as valid. There is good reason not to.

If you want a good set of examples of Breibart using deceptive journalism and lacking real facts- just read through the Wiki entry on Breibart under notable stories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#Notable_stories) Most of them are "notable" because they were inaccurate and generally based in bad reporting. That's the reputation this publication has earned.

[Fallen]

In fairness here Fallen, Breibart has been lambasted repeatedly for fake evidence and information. This isn't a Fox News or MSNBC situation, where the editorial layer over the facts tries to sway you towards particular interpretations. This is a publication that got its start by posting a fake video about ACORN that was later heavily debunked. They helped spread the myth that Clinton was giving away CIA names (helped by Goudy, of course).

There's bias, and then there's a passing acquaintance with the truth. Breibart is borderline yellow journalism with political speak on top. And, again, it has heralded itself as the home of a movement of political white nationalists. We don't need to treat every news source as valid. There is good reason not to.

Sources like the National Inquirer break huge stories from time to time. Hell, they even won a Pulitzer. I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, you have to realize that people you're arguing with will dismiss your sources out of hand if you do theirs, whether yours are viewed as more credible by the mainstream or not.

[Androidpk]

National Enquirer was the first to break the Bill Clinton/Lewinsky scandal! :lol2:

[time4fun]

Sources like the National Inquirer break huge stories from time to time. Hell, they even won a Pulitzer. I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, you have to realize that people you're arguing with will dismiss your sources out of hand if you do theirs, whether yours are viewed as more credible by the mainstream or not.

The problem with that theory is that if you're using a news source that you know has a history of inaccurately reflecting reality, you are eventually guaranteed to fall for things that aren't true.

PK doesn't just "occasionally stumble upon" Breibart. It's a primary source for him, which is why the reality he sees is so different from the reality he lives in.

If something in an otherwise less than credible news source is actually true, then the facts and story will spread to credible news sites (who at least theoretically will fact check it in a week or two). So in that case, you should be citing credible news sources (ideally fact checking sites or sections) to make your case.

Citing the original source instead of credible sources likely means you either didn't bother trying to verify the claims in the typically untrustworthy source, or you couldn't actually find a credible news source that validated it. If it's information that feels groundbreaking, that's suspicious either way.

I get your Aristotelian approach here, but you're trying to valid a source and a process that shouldn't be validated.

[Warriorbird]

Sources like the National Inquirer break huge stories from time to time. Hell, they even won a Pulitzer. I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, you have to realize that people you're arguing with will dismiss your sources out of hand if you do theirs, whether yours are viewed as more credible by the mainstream or not.

Pretty much everybody is dismissing every source. Most of them have some level of point.

[Androidpk]

Pretty much everybody is dismissing every source. Most of them have some level of point.

As Tgo said some sources are inherently biased. You wouldn't use yourself as a source in a story. Nor should you use sources that are directly connected to the story. IE, Mediamatters (Brock), Brian Fallon, Clinton campaign website, ect.

[Androidpk]

T

PK doesn't just "occasionally stumble upon" Breibart. It's a primary source for him, which is why the reality he sees is so different from the reality he lives in.

Breitbart is actually one of the places I don't go to for news. Same with Fox news. Sorry to burst that reality bubble of yours.

[Warriorbird]

As Tgo said some sources are inherently biased. You wouldn't use yourself as a source in a story. Nor should you use sources that are directly connected to the story. IE, Mediamatters (Brock), Brian Fallon, Clinton campaign website, ect.

Most of your sources have been directly connected with conservatives defeating Clinton or angry Sanders voters. Thus the quandry.

[Androidpk]

Most of your sources have been directly connected with conservatives defeating Clinton or angry Sanders voters. Thus the quandry.

If you can't see the difference between right/left leaning news organizations and people directly connected to a story such as Brock and Fallon, who are literally working for the Clintons, then you're just as naive as time4fun.

[Warriorbird]

If you can't see the difference between right/left leaning news organizations and people directly connected to a story such as Brock and Fallon, who are literally working for the Clintons, then you're just as naive as time4fun.

You don't just apply it to sources directly connected. You apply it to everything. It's why none of this works unless its pure trolling.

Totally unrelated sources get "OMG BRIAN FALLON!" too.

[Fallen]

The problem with that theory is that if you're using a news source that you know has a history of inaccurately reflecting reality, you are eventually guaranteed to fall for things that aren't true.

PK doesn't just "occasionally stumble upon" Breibart. It's a primary source for him, which is why the reality he sees is so different from the reality he lives in.

If something in an otherwise less than credible news source is actually true, then the facts and story will spread to credible news sites (who at least theoretically will fact check it in a week or two). So in that case, you should be citing credible news sources (ideally fact checking sites or sections) to make your case.

Citing the original source instead of credible sources likely means you either didn't bother trying to verify the claims in the typically untrustworthy source, or you couldn't actually find a credible news source that validated it. If it's information that feels groundbreaking, that's suspicious either way.

I get your Aristotelian approach here, but you're trying to valid a source and a process that shouldn't be validated.

I prefer the use of a news aggregator, so I see your point. Even still, if you're taking the time to argue with people, you should take the time to consider what they put forward as a source. Otherwise, you're not talking to one another, just at them.

[Latrinsorm]

First of all your link has zero to do with the "birther" movement, rather it was about calling Obama's faith into question. Second of all, where in that link does it say Clinton fired anyone over the incident? Honestly, I had to read the story twice to make sure I didn't miss it, but hey maybe I need to read it a third time, care to just quote the part? Because this is what I see: Yeah, sure sounds like Hillary is "denouncing" it and "firing" people. Oh yeah! Hillary sounds so distraught over this! Obama should be ashamed to take offense at this photo! Yup. Hillary sure is "denouncing" her supporters and firing them. Was this another case of you hoping I wouldn't read your link and just take your word for it?I will be happy to answer any questions you have when you stop inventing my position. Until you stop reading words I did not write, there's just no point.

[Tgo01]

I will be happy to answer any questions you have when you stop inventing my position. Until you stop reading words I did not write, there's just no point.

What are you talking about now?

Here is how the conversation played out:

Me: Hillary didn't denounce her supporters who started the birther movement.

You: Hillary denounced AND fired those supporters.

Me: Proof?

You: Here is proof in regards to a totally different situation.

Me: That's not what we are discussing.

You: Stop putting words in my mouth.

Me: <confused. Starts writing this reply.>

[Wrathbringer]

What are you talking about now?

Here is how the conversation played out:

Me: Hillary didn't denounce her supporters who started the birther movement.

You: Hillary denounced AND fired those supporters.

Me: Proof?

You: Here is proof in regards to a totally different situation.

Me: That's not what we are discussing.

You: Stop putting words in my mouth.

Me: <confused. Starts writing this reply.>

/latrinsormed

[Methais]

Today I learned the following:

1. Hillary is as pure as pure gets and not once has ever done anything wrong to anyone or anything for any reason and any and all evidence or sources indicating otherwise are racists.

2. Any sources that aren't on time4fun's approved list of sources are biased liarfaces and anyone that doesn't already know this should feel ashamed.

3. time4fun and Latrin are most likely soulmates.

[Gelston]

Today I learned the following:

1. Hillary is as pure as pure gets and not once has ever done anything wrong to anyone or anything for any reason and any and all evidence or sources indicating otherwise are racists.

2. Any sources that aren't on time4fun's approved list of sources are biased liarfaces and anyone that doesn't already know this should feel ashamed.

3. time4fun and Latrin are most likely soulmates.

Latrin is definitely feminine enough to be time4fun's type.

[Thondalar]

Hilary can't pre emptively control the human beings working for her campaign. She can't police peoples' minds. She's not Dick Cheney. What we have here is a rogue element, and since you ask her denouncement was well, well, well before (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton) the primaries were even over. She reacted as fast as was humanly possible, which is not instantaneous, because that is not physically possible.

Er...that link didn't have anything about Clinton denouncing anything, nor firing anyone. It mentions a few Clinton staffers who resigned after being idiots, and it mentions the Clinton campaign's regular use of "dirty tricks".

edit: apparently this was already covered. Nevermind.