Newsmax, the wannabe OAN? Lol Bob. They're science denying, far right fake news that rates a 45/180 for honesty who sells snake oil by tricking their readers/viewers into reading fake "scientific discovery" articles that direct you to a sale page for the new snake oil that cures cancer or makes your cells (so you) immortal. Holy Fuck.
I won't watch a second of their dishonesty, recently claiming the RNC turned the tables for Trump and he's winning in all the polls now? Get real, such nonsense. You just love blatant fraudsters, don't you. They love you, they love all their uneducated followers, they're so easy to separate from their money.

Explain.
Exactly what is untrue?
You won't reply because you can't answer, and Trump hasn't given you an answer.
Weak and corrupt are Trump's traits, too weak to walk down a ramp, too weak to keep his lust for his young teenaged daughter private, too corrupt to beat multiple fraud charges, too corrupt to ever be connected to a charity ever again because of massive, pervasive frauds, his children too, his cabinet even more so.

There is none so blind as he who will not see, and you're hiding in the basement closet, eyes closed and blindfolded against seeing anything bad about Trump.

So ridiculously stupid and dishonest, Bob. Just dumb. I know you're incapable of investigating yourself, but you insist on spouting your ignorant theories as facts constantly knowing there are people here who will investigate and castigate you over your intentional dishonesty. Stop lying.

The cause isn't united either.

Another part of the problem is you have a lot of people like @newtboy who really DO mean defund the police by the dictionary definition. Those folks are mixed in with the protesters who mean 'reform' when they say 'defund'.

That's all to be expected though when you see the systematic failure of the national police force that is out there. When the number of bad actors in the force becomes too many, includes sheriffs and their deputies, and sees various police chiefs and police union leaders(not toe mention Presidents) defending the bad actors, the people that rise up in anger aren't going to be a uniform centrally organized entity.

As Dave Chapelle refers to it, these are the streets speaking for themselves. The public can't be expected to hold a single, uniform and documented solution that they are marching for. It is unfair to the point of dishonesty to try and discredit the protestors as a 'mob' because their calls for reform aren't consistent enough or well messaged enough. The presumably better educated, smarter professionals running the country(from the bottom to the top) are the one's whose job it is to find a good solution. More importantly, it's also their fault for failing to enact solutions to the problem before the public outrage hit the levels it has.

No Biden corruption...only Trump collusion.

There was no prosecution or investigation at the time Joe Biden, with full American, international, and Ukrainian backing, pushed to have them remove a corrupt prosecutor who refused to prosecute corruption. The investigation of the company his son had worked for was closed, finding zero wrongdoing, long before Joe pushed them to remove an internationally recognized corrupt prosecutor. Every part of the story Trump told you, besides the location, is demonstrably, obviously, factually wrong. It's a pure Trump lie.
Most of the republicans repeating his lies know that for a fact, having been witness to what actually happened, the rest are willfully ignorant, refusing to look into it because they KNOW Trump is lying to them but don't want to admit it to themselves or you.

Trump's administration is by far the most corrupt in modern history, with more convictions, more forced out of office for malfeasance, more dishonesty and outright lies to the press, the American people, congress, the supreme court, international leaders, etc. There's no one they haven't lied to, and they go on tv and say they're justified lying to everyone, they have no obligation to tell the truth unless they're under oath, but even then they lie constantly....and get caught because they're stupid and dumb.

Really?! What evidence can you point to that isn't Trump's flapping gums? None. This conspiracy theory was also investigated and found to be as truthful as the pizza pedophile ring Clinton led from a pizza place's basement that didn't exist.

That's exactly what Trump says, the president can't be prosecuted or investigated, and anyone who does investigate him is a traitor who should face a firing squad, not Democrats or independents.
That's why more than 1/2 of registered voters think we know enough already to remove him, and 20-30% more think he should be removed if the charges are true, and the white house admitted they are true and offered written proof themselves, so dumb they thought it would exonerate him. *facepalm.
We're saying if you are so demented you make up insane self serving stories in your head like Biden stopped a prosecution, then you act as if they're factual, you should be removed from office for dementia, as should anyone who repeats your lies.

Now, if we're worried an administration may have abused their power to enrich their family, we should look at the king of nepotism, the Trumps, who do private business with countries we aren't aligned with and OBVIOUSLY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY get special favors and do nothing jobs that pay millions....Ivanka's trademarks in China for instance, bought with state promises by the president.

If Obama had had his personal attorneys skip around the globe pressuring foreign leaders to hurt his political opponents, withholding approved aid until they agree to help him personally, you would have lost your shit so thoroughly you could replace your home toilet with a urinal. There's zero question Trump has done this, he and Giuliani both have admitted it and there's evidence that, for once, they're telling the truth, too dumb to know collusion is wrong, too dumb to know admitting to extortion makes them suspects.

Lol. As usual, when argument one falls apart like a tissue paper submarine, you just move on to stupid dishonest red herring argument number two without pause.

In context, I was explaining why one shouldn't answer questions by police as if they were just trying to help and as if answering truthfully is never going to hurt you, which is a position any half decent lawyer would agree with....and what I said was
"If you believe they are there just to help you, cooperate. The prisons are full of [innocent] people who did just that. They are not normal humans, they are authorities looking for infractions."

Your dishonesty is on full display and it shows clearly you are nothing but a troll.

Lol.

Apparently the far right still needs to learn it has no credibility. Trotting out sycophantic Trump morons to preach more garbage isn't helping and isn't working anymore.

Even our military has no credibility anymore, and our allies no longer trust us. This is thanks to the dishonesty of right wing administrations, not left.

That's why Trump is having daily fits over his poll numbers continuing to fall, and he's never neared 50% approval, and why there are still so many pending cases against the administration based on the evidence you refuse to believe exists.
It doesn't go unnoticed that you can't factually contradict what they said, so you simply dismiss it without reason.

Also, note that your pilot was denied asylum and returned to Palestine.

I like carrots, and if eating a full serving a day increased my lifetime risk for one cancer from 5-6%, I would eat exactly the same amount of carrots, but if I could reduce that risk increase based on the soil I grow them in or other factors under my control I would.
...and there aren't 800 studies saying bacon CAUSES cancer, there are studies that indicate eating it regularly increases your risk slightly....but I know, that's too advanced a concept, better to just fudge it and lie by telling people it's conclusive that each slice of bacon increases your cancer risk by 18% and insult anyone who corrects you. Fuck.

I drive, that's risky. Walking is risky. I use my bathroom....risky. I weld, super risky, use power tools, risky, breath in America, that's far more risky than bacon, drink water here, risk, go outside in public, all kinds of risks. If a 1% increase in one area of risk stops you, you would be dead already. You choose your risks, you just want to choose other people's risks too, because they aren't getting scared of what you want.

Plenty could make me quit bacon. Again, you spout nonsense you know nothing about. A simple lack of curing would make me not eat it, proof the supply chain is contaminated with human parasites or certain diseases. A slightly higher risk factor for one type of cancer, fuck no, you know that's not enough to dissuade most people from things they enjoy, that's why you exaggerate.

I don't claim to know what made you that way, but you are hyper biased towards all things vegan and against all things non vegan which results in constant dishonesty. No question at all.

No. That's not the issue.
The issue is that when you are to the right of Goebbels, everything looks liberal and honest truth looks like a partisan attack. The right has not just run far right, they put on rocket shoes with wheels and warped right. What was considered a hard right position 20 years ago is now called hyper liberal by your ilk.
There is no excuse for the garbage "reporting" going on....at Fox, OAN, and Info Wars. None. It's not really reporting when you make up 90% and use each other as sources.

Kavanaugh was treated like a prince compared to Garland, a centrist judge confirmed unanimously by republicans before they lost their minds and souls to become the party of "Fuck you".
Fusion thing? You mean his crappy dietary supplements that he claims could make you the Adonis that Jones himself is? Um...yeah, that's obviously and undeniably a pack of lies concocted by Alex Jones. Duh.

Again, you choose to conflate imperfection on the left with inhumanity and consistent dishonesty and fraud from the top leadership on the right.
Obama did better stopping undocumented migrants out than Trump has without dehumanizing them or calling them murderers and rapists in obvious racist ploys to get his racist base excited, but you certainly disagree because and are certain Trump has done more because Trump calls them rapists and murderers, and implies that any middle eastern is a terrorist (but not angry white guys with guns and mail bombs, those are good people).

There may be more than enough scum to go around, but one side is nothing but lying fraudulent scumbags now, and it's not the left. Trump is a convicted fraud who defrauded poor students (and charities, and anyone he ever did business with) and is 100% incapable of being truthful even when his words are written for him, and the dishonesty seeped through the party like Ebola, leaving none uninfected. You look at 2 children, one with some mud on its face, the other slathered head to toe like a golem, and you say they're both dirty, plenty of mud on both sides. *facepalm

You can say he ordered them to stand down, BUT

https://youtu.be/AQfJnl0r8FI?t=1m14s


"It's not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point."
And he goes on to explain that focus was shifted towards helping the states protect the integrity of the election systems.

It seems to me that the O-Admin underestimated the social-hacking taking place through propaganda efforts from the Ruskies, much like we all did before most of it came to light. It's a far cry from the current admin's "Russia if you're listening" and general 'We need to get along better with Russia' sentiments.


And it's odd that you're taking the side of Flynn considering even the current administration fired him in short order because of his dishonesty about his Russian entanglements. I'm not picking him as a "bad" guy, the Trump administration, the Obama administration, and the Justice Department is.

Yep, a comedian on a comedy tour taking a joke picture pretending to assault a sleeping woman who then quit of his own accord is exactly the same as a long term pedophile who enjoys his parties full support and never backs down or apologizes even after losing, or a philanderer who blackmail his mistress by taking naked pictures of her tied up and threatening to make them public then fights removal.

There is no equivalency. There's not a monopoly on one side, no, but there's absolutely not "every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican". Republican dishonesty is about selling the country to Russia and raiding the treasury, and hiding or excusing inexcusable behavior and permeates everything they say. Democratic dishonesty is about which email account an email came from and pretending the leadership has no bias, and bowing to hyper sensitivity and disingenuous faux outrage.

For example...
Asked how his tax plan benefits the rich, he replied....
Trump: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

When asked about his rich friends....
"They can call me all they want; not going to help," he said Sept. 27, 2017. "I'm doing the right thing and it's not good for me, believe me."

When asked about the Trump zero tolerance plan to tear families apart as a political ploy, Trump claimed the Democrats did it and only they can reverse it, then he reversed his plan himself proving both family destroying lies to be lies.

The consistency, levels, and importance of the dishonesty from Republicans is exponentially greater than that from Democrats, who are far from perfect themselves.

Edit: Btw, Mahr has addressed the issue of him running for office repeatedly, he's capable and intelligent enough to be honest and say he's a horrible politician and would probably never run, and he knows he's far more influential exactly where he is than he might be as a freshman representative.....and he's smart enough to see that a candidate that gets out the vote for the opposition (like Clinton) is a horrendously stupid idea.
And Franken worked out great until he caved to false outrage and quit while pedophiles and abusive philanderers were welcomed into the opposing party feigning the outrage over a funny (but disrespectful) picture.

I don't understand why a-holes like this get so much credence and attention on this site as well as others. If Mahr and his very well heeled cronies are so capable and intelligent, let them run for office like the other comedian - Franken did ... and how did that work out????

And don't take this as support for the Trump Chumps - there is every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican - the Democrats just sugarcoat it, and the media drools all over themselves supporting it...

@bobknight33 @newtboy

Leaving out key information, to the point that what's being said could be easily misunderstood, is a form of dishonesty.

But, Bob, I know we don't talk much, that's mostly because I don't like you. This kind of thing is exactly why I feel this way though.

Let's break down the first few of this commercial...errr propaganda piece.

"Despite our political differences, Russia and the United States have maintained friendly relations since the foundation of our great nation."
--------
Depends heavily on your definition of "friendly." If by friendly, you mean "almost nuking each other over long stretches of time," yeah sure, we're friendly.
------------------

"In fact, Russia and America have worked together, throughout history, to defeat our common enemies."
-------
Ehhh... we sort of worked independently against the same people out of individualized interests, not because we like each other. The video cites Russia "ignoring British requests for naval support during the American Revolutionary War;" except Catherine II basically manipulated the colonists into turning their backs on Britain to suit her own purposes and weakening the countries by splitting them in two.

This video cites the Ghent Treaty, but that was only struck after Napolean had already taken Moscow and an emboldened Russia started the land grab that led to the Crimean War. While getting their commie shits kicked in and losing the land they tried to take and then some, they were worried about not being compensated for American Russia, aka Alaska. So a few years after that, they sold it to the US for a cool $7 mill. (cold joke, get it?)

In short, even if we did get along with each other, it was just barely. Regardless, that was a different country that just happens to be occupying the same land now.

---------

But, you know, nevermind all that. Because that's not what you wanted to debate, was it? (see quote)

So I'll say this: Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a twitter war with the mayor of London, whose city just suffered a terror attack. That's the level of critique and disregard for decorum he has while doing it.

He'll cofefe the shit out of the pope and spit in NATO's face.

AND YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Nothing but positivity for Russia.

Last I remember, you were a fairly large promoter of Hillary's email dumps. Yeah, one of us is drinkin the bad kool-aid alright.

Let's end the suspense. Why not use something less-abstract to rest your laurels on? Hmmm...if only there were something...like...hmmm...something more...hmmm... concrete......hmmmm not like transparent like a fence...fence=fake news (see first presidential address)...hmm if only there were some kind of symbol for just how big of a fucking liar this asshole is....hmmmm ghad why can't i think of this...URGh! I feel like I'm banging my head against....hmmm.

Ah well.

p.s. Right here buddy: http://bit.ly/2rNSNsw

@notarobot
But we had a nonshit sandwich candidate...Sanders. I'm still astonished that so many people voted for a toss up election with a horrifically disliked candidate over a statistical landslide victory with a revolutionary candidate lacking in closeted skeletons or innumerable examples of his dishonesty. I simply don't understand what they were thinking.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.