Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The minute I read your post I knew that the next one would be about how Clinton is a big fat liar.
Honestly, how people can believe the conspiracy nonsense put out by Trump, Breitbart and company is beyond me.
Got to wonder how they make it in the world if they are not able to tell what's true and what's not?
I could see that if you do not believe wikileaks, but I seem to remember plenty of liberals and the MSM being big believers in them when they went after Bush? So which is it, can wikileaks be trusted or not? Can the MSM be trusted or not?
There is also plenty of evidence it is not a conspiracy theory, but that it is a real conspiracy. They just did not tie up all their loose ends this time. I guess Hillary really is losing her touch these days.
All politicians lie in my opinion. It's one of the shortcomings of a democratic system of government. Politicians have to lie in order to energize their base.
My choice for president doesn't have to do so much about lies ... let's call it "misinformation" ... but the ultimate direction the country will go under that candidate's administration.
I say if you're not pleased with your party's candidate just vote for him or her because you identify with the principals of that party.
Who's the biggest liar? Trump has just uttered "Pants On Fire" Lie No. 55. Hillary has 7. This means that Trump lies 7.8 times more often than Clinton does.
"Trump said, "Wikileaks also shows how John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling Democrats, a voter suppression technique."
"A leaked email shows the Clinton campaign of 2008 consulted data firm that suggest oversampling in what is likely internal polling. The term refers to a common technique used by pollsters to analyze demographics groups more precisely than possible in a random sample.
"We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire."
Haven't i discussed this already in detail? I'm pretty sure i have.
It's hard to comprehend the depths of mental depravity of the right-winger. I mean, they constantly bash Clinton for untrustworthiness, yet back a lying, perverted, arrogant, anti-American, misogynistic, mentally insane, disgusting hypocrite like Trump.
What gives?
What gives? Its called "false equivalence"
To equate Trump (supposedly) lying about seeing thousands in the streets cheering after 9-11 as the same as Hillary lying about a missing server, and 33000 supposed deleted state dept emails, is the height of stupidity.
Haven't i discussed this already in detail? I'm pretty sure i have.
There is more:
Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from Hillary:
Quote:
Says Donald Trump is "the first person running for president, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election."
— Hillary Clinton on Monday, October 24th, 2016 in a rally in New Hampshire
Notice the phrase "respect the results of this election". "THIS ELECTION". So basically there are only 2 people running in THIS ELECTION. Politifact goes on to call it "mostly true"? So, are they saying that she is not going to respect the results of this election since she is the only other one running (Stein and Johnson not withstanding). Politifacts then pivots, and now includes every other election in US history:
Quote:
We wondered if Trump really is the first presidential candidate in American history who would not say that he’ll accept the election results.
Wait a minute. Thats NOT what Hillary said. She said "THIS ELECTION", not others. Yet, Politifact goes on for 4 paragraphs talking about other elections. Why didnt they just say True? And why are they even needing to fact check this in the first place? Did someone claim Clinton, Stein, or Johnson would dispute the election results? No? Was this whole measure put out there to give Hillary another "True" statement?
Looking at another one here:
Quote:
"400 bills have my name on them either as a sponsor or a co-sponsor. You don’t get that done unless you work with folks on the other side."
— Hillary Clinton on Saturday, October 22nd, 2016 in a press conference
politifact called it "mostly true" despite the FACT that their own research showed there were only 363 bills. So, she flat out lied! Politifacts proved with their own research that she lied, but still say "mostly true". HOW?!!!
Quote:
According to the official website for federal legislative information, Congress.gov, Clinton introduced 713 pieces of legislation over her two terms. Of that count, 363 were Senate bills, while the rest were amendments or resolutions.
I could see that if you do not believe wikileaks, but I seem to remember plenty of liberals and the MSM being big believers in them when they went after Bush? So which is it, can wikileaks be trusted or not? Can the MSM be trusted or not?
There is also plenty of evidence it is not a conspiracy theory, but that it is a real conspiracy. They just did not tie up all their loose ends this time. I guess Hillary really is losing her touch these days.
What conspiracy was revealed by Wikileaks? That the Clinton campaign worked together? That's the big conspiracy? That Podesta hoped the San Bernadino guy was white?
Wikileaks has been a big bunch of hyped ho-hum.
As to Bush, who needed Wikileaks to know they were pulling a fast one? Good grief, the minute they introduced that Chabala anyone with any sense at all knew you couldn't trust him. Which is exactly how it turned out.
Cheney and his cohorts outed undercover CIA operative Valarie Plame in retaliation for her husband reporting that the business about yellow cake from Nigeria was bogus. Outing a CIA agent is treason. Was there even a single Congressional hearing over it?
Bush, Cheney and their neocon advisors lied to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan when they could have just as well sent in a strike force and nabbed Bin Ladin. (Which is exactly what Obama eventually did.)
Cheney was involved financially with Halliburton which made out like a bandit from these wars. Didn't hurt the Bush family oil business either.
There is absolutely no comparison to the Bush conspiracies and this Wikileaks weak tea.
The only conspiracy revealed by Wikileaks is that Russia is interfering with U.S. elections. If that doesn't alarm you, it ought to.
The minute I read your post I knew that the next one would be about how Clinton is a big fat liar.
Honestly, how people can believe the conspiracy nonsense put out by Trump, Breitbart and company is beyond me.
Got to wonder how they make it in the world if they are not able to tell what's true and what's not?
Hillary is a Better liar than Trump. She's had 30 years of practice as a politician/ lawyer/ wife of Slick Willie himself. Even with their bias, PolitiFact ranks only 24% of her statements as True. Not only are most ratings subjective [half true vs. mostly false ], but PF self selects what to evaluate.
She was also greeted by sniper fire upon landing in Bosnia. Such a brave woman!
I was in the Balkans. The threat of snipers was always there, whether while she was visiting or not. I'm sure that was in the threat brief and risk assessment when she entered the hazardous area/warzone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
], but PF self selects what to evaluate. 
