In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
On that subject:
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Thousands isn't necessarily scandals; a measure of lawsuits is pretty routine in the real estate business; while I suspect it may be more common for some of trump things, and he certainly has his share of questionable details, I'd want a point of comparison to typical real estate holdings before considering the "thousands" a point against him.
On August 09 2016 01:46 zlefin wrote: Thousands isn't necessarily scandals; a measure of lawsuits is pretty routine in the real estate business; while I suspect it may be more common for some of trump things, and he certainly has his share of questionable details, I'd want a point of comparison to typical real estate holdings before considering the "thousands" a point against him.
From a quick review of the articles, real estate seems to only make up about 300 of the cases. The majority have to do with gambling.
On August 09 2016 01:46 zlefin wrote: Thousands isn't necessarily scandals; a measure of lawsuits is pretty routine in the real estate business; while I suspect it may be more common for some of trump things, and he certainly has his share of questionable details, I'd want a point of comparison to typical real estate holdings before considering the "thousands" a point against him.
"For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined."
"Just since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open "
That despite Trump's lead lawyer lying through his teeth about the number of lawsuits being standard. I wonder why he doesn't want to admit it's not standard.
On August 09 2016 01:46 zlefin wrote: Thousands isn't necessarily scandals; a measure of lawsuits is pretty routine in the real estate business; while I suspect it may be more common for some of trump things, and he certainly has his share of questionable details, I'd want a point of comparison to typical real estate holdings before considering the "thousands" a point against him.
So let's compare the two biggest of those scandals without looking at how many of those each candidate is involved in:
Trump university vs the email thing. I'm sorry but we are talking about f... thousands of vulnerable students in the a.. by lying to them and make them pay dozens of thousand of dollars with a fake university that is a fraud from top to bottom, or about using a private email server when you should use an official one.
Well the email thing was, to quote the FBI, extremely careless. In the other hand, the Trump University exposes Trump for what he is, an utter and total asshole ready to pump money out of vulnerable people who trust him.
Now, past the email thing, we have little to complain about Clinton, while the example of Trump screwing people who trusted him are just countless.
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
Do you think HRC is more crooked than Donald?
Trump supporters who refer to Hillary as "Crooked Hillary" because of her few scandals and occasional accusations conveniently ignore the fact that Trump has had thousands of lawsuits and scandals surrounding him and his shady business dealings.
One of many articles citing that figure: "An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits." ~ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
Yeah doesn't make a whole lotta sense coming from Trump supporters but she is crooked. At least Biff is not saying "there was never any evidence" even if he just dismisses her consistent lying about her emails (and many questionable dealings of the CF).
As for getting personally enriched from campaign money, you can, it's just a lot easier if it's a superPAC, and you have to jump through some hoops.
Newt Gingrich has been living off of campaign money for damn near a decade though.
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
Do you think HRC is more crooked than Donald?
Trump supporters who refer to Hillary as "Crooked Hillary" because of her few scandals and occasional accusations conveniently ignore the fact that Trump has had thousands of lawsuits and scandals surrounding him and his shady business dealings.
One of many articles citing that figure: "An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits." ~ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
Yeah doesn't make a whole lotta sense coming from Trump supporters but she is crooked. At least Biff is not saying "there was never any evidence" even if he just dismisses her consistent lying about her emails (and many questionable dealings of the CF).
As for getting personally enriched from campaign money, you can, it's just a lot easier if it's a superPAC, and you have to jump through some hoops.
Newt Gingrich has been living off of campaign money for damn near a decade though.
I know Hillary lied to cover her ass in this email thing. Now if all there is about you after two decades of being under a microscope is an obscure email mishandling and not being honest when confronted with it in the race for the White House, I think you are doing ok on the crookery department.
And that your opponent who, meanwhile has been betraying thousand of students, investors and so on should shut the fuck up.
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
On August 09 2016 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:52 biology]major wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Politifact has some very dubious judgment calls on whether certain statements are 'truthful' or 'untruthful'.
If you've ever gone through their articles and read why they rate statements the way they do, you would hardly call them independent or unbiased.
Clearly that website that won the Pulitzer is not reliable. You know better than them how Trump is honest and Hillary is a crook.
Good thing with fact checking is, you can check. So make yourself a favour, go on Trump page and READ the stupid dumb lies he has said over and over and over and over again. And then only, I listen to you when you have the guts to call Clinton dishonest while supporting him. A bit of intellectual integrity won't hurt.
On August 09 2016 01:43 zlefin wrote: I've been pondering how to address the issues caused by the ever more rapidly changing economy, and globalization. I'm thinking that, just as educational availability has expanded over time; it may be time to have some sort of public, free, continuing education option, to ensure that everyone can retrain to get the skills for whatever jobs are available. Not at all sure yet that it's the best approach, but it seems like a better idea than protectionism; and people switch jobs and careers so much more these days, that a continuing ed approach seems worthwhile. And I'm not sure how many poor people would be able to afford the private continuing ed options that are available, so it may be better for society to offer such options free, just as we have free K-12 for everyone. These days so much just changes from when you were last in school that continuing ed is more important than it used to be.
Retraining is something that makes sense mostly for low-skilled workers (which should be covered decently by the recent "free CC" push); most people who get a competent university degree will slowly retrain themselves into whatever position is necessary. However, the general trend has been that employers spend less on retraining themselves and instead require those skills at the outset. Also, there are only so many jobs available at any given skill level, and many of the decent semi-skilled jobs of the past have been replaced by a mix of outsourced sweatshop labor and automation, which forces people into low paying grunt work like retail.
Protectionism is a good thing when properly applied to limit the exposure of vulnerable industries to foreign competition until they are effective enough to be competitive at a global level (as opposed to being used to create local monopolies). Becoming reliant on foreign producers and especially on foreign legal/economic rules (as a weaker party to those rules) can be fatal in the long run, which necessitates the development of your own industry.
On August 09 2016 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:52 biology]major wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Politifact has some very dubious judgment calls on whether certain statements are 'truthful' or 'untruthful'.
If you've ever gone through their articles and read why they rate statements the way they do, you would hardly call them independent or unbiased.
Nothing is without bias, so there is literally nothing we can cite that will be the one true decider of Trump's and Clinton's truthyness . Politifact has a reasonable track record and strives to be as independent as possible.
On August 09 2016 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:52 biology]major wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Politifact has some very dubious judgment calls on whether certain statements are 'truthful' or 'untruthful'.
If you've ever gone through their articles and read why they rate statements the way they do, you would hardly call them independent or unbiased.
Clearly that website that won the Pulitzer is not reliable. You know better than them how Trump is honest and Hillary is a crook.
Good thing with fact checking is, you can check. So make yourself a favour, go on Trump page and READ the stupid dumb lies he has said over and over and over and over again. And then only, I listen to you when you have the guts to call Clinton dishonest while supporting him. A bit of intellectual integrity won't hurt.
I said you're wrong to say politifact is an independent, unbiased organization.
Someone saying 1+1=3 is wrong. If you give them a Pulitzer they are still wrong. They have a lot of good judgment calls but they are far from this end-all-discussion beacon of truth you seem to think they are
I never said Trump was honest. You're arguing with no one here. Continue blathering at me though I'm sure it makes you feel smart
On August 09 2016 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: I know Hillary lied to cover her ass in this email thing. Now if all there is about you after two decades of being under a microscope is an obscure email mishandling and not being honest when confronted with it in the race for the White House, I think you are doing ok on the crookery department.
See, this is what I mean by people trying to paint Hillary as the "innocent victim of a smear campaign." She's not - she has a lot of crooked affairs associated with her and this is just one of the more recent ones, not "all there is after two decades of being under a microscope." The majority of those affairs, the Republicans are even more culpable than Hillary so they don't talk about it. But she nonetheless is culpable.
And the email affair isn't some "obscure email mishandling" but more so an irresponsible and extremely careless mishandling of classified information by someone who is supposed to be the responsible head of an important part of the Cabinet. It may not be a "Hillary for prison" act but it's definitely the kind of thing that most people would have their clearance revoked and be fired for.
On August 09 2016 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:52 biology]major wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Politifact has some very dubious judgment calls on whether certain statements are 'truthful' or 'untruthful'.
If you've ever gone through their articles and read why they rate statements the way they do, you would hardly call them independent or unbiased.
Some of the ones about Bernie say "misleading"/"requires caveats" but then are given a "false" yet you can go to Hillary's and find similar situations given "half-true". I mean they generally do a decent job of putting the facts together (there have been some recent and rather large errors) but the final verdict is often bs.
In no other situation would the same people be writing off the "extreme carelessness" and consistent lying about her handling of sensitive information as not a big deal.
These same folks would probably expect us to believe she didn't delete any work related emails before so graciously handing them over either.
EDIT: Jonathan Capehart won a Pulitzer, so yeah... In case we have forgotten, lets remember who Pulitzer was...
Joseph Pulitzer (Listeni/ˈpʊlɪtsər/2] Hungarian: [ˈpulit͡sɛr]; born József Pulitzer; April 10, 1847 – October 29, 1911) was an American newspaper publisher of the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the New York World. Pulitzer introduced the techniques of yellow journalism to the newspapers he acquired in the 1880s.
Yeah, let's throw in bit of discussion about how any individual, aka "subject", can be "objective" and completely ignore that while no organisation is perfect and an award doesn't make you so, their reputation gives a whole lot of weight to their findings. And when the track records of "honesty" are that tilted, you don't need to have the impossible perfect source to come to a pretty obvious conclusion.
On August 09 2016 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:52 biology]major wrote:
On August 09 2016 00:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 08 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: So Trump lied through his teeth about contacting Kasich for VP? Is there still any claim to Trump being less crooked than Hillary? I'd like to hear the argument.
Well except for using a wrong server for her emails, there has never been the shadow of a proof that Hillary was crooked.
Meanwhile, the life of Trump is littered with cheated customers, ruined investors and thousands of lawsuits, and his short political career has been built on one lie after another.
But apparently nobody seems to notice how rich it is to call anyone, least of all Clinton, crooked.
HRC is so truthful and honest that she was given 4 pinocchios by the washington post. Then she had an opportunity to address it, where she gave an incoherent answer that didn't even acknowledge why she was defending her position in the first place . I don't expect you to even respond reasonably to this, but am more interested in the delusion you will come up with to protect your views.
That sounds horrible. How many did Trump get? My point is not that Hillary is a saint, but that Trump should really shut his big mouth with his crooked Hillary because she is a model of honesty and integrity next to him.
Before you protest, let's look at a serious, independent fact checking website, shall we?
Politifact has some very dubious judgment calls on whether certain statements are 'truthful' or 'untruthful'.
If you've ever gone through their articles and read why they rate statements the way they do, you would hardly call them independent or unbiased.
Some of the ones about Bernie say "misleading"/"requires caveats" but then are given a "false" yet you can go to Hillary's and find similar situations given "half-true". I mean they generally do a decent job of putting the facts together (there have been some recent and rather large errors) but the final verdict is often bs. .
This
They report the facts and plenty of the time it's very straightforward and no one will disagree with the verdict on a rating as 'truthful' or 'untruthful'. When it's a simple fact they're checking it's almost always accurate
But often their judgment calls on whether something is 'truthful' or 'untruthful' is anything but consistent between candidates when it comes to statements that aren't just simple 'fact-checks'
They take great liberties with how they go about interpreting statements made by the candidates
EPT
2] Hungarian: [ˈpulit͡sɛr]; born József Pulitzer; April 10, 1847 – October 29, 1911) was an American newspaper publisher of the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the New York World. Pulitzer introduced the techniques of yellow journalism to the newspapers he acquired in the 1880s.
