For JSO...How it all Works

[Ibanez]

JSO, does the DNC pay you per word, post or thread? How's that work?

[JohnStOnge]

Note that the Clinton Foundation, regardless of whether you think it was used to facilitate so shadowy activity, is a highly rated charity that only spends about 12% of donations on overhead. Not the Republicans haven't tried to out and out lie about that. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ndation-c/.

BTW the organization referenced in that Politifact summary, The American Institute of Philanthropy , gives the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating. It doesn't even appear to recognize the The Donald J. Trump Foundation as a charity. I tried searching its database. I tried the official name "Donald J. Trump Foundation." Got "There are no charities in this search." Tried "Trump Foundation." Got the same thing. All you have to do is type "Clinton" and "Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation" comes up.

Oh but I'm sure that the American Institute of Philanthropy is part of the "dishonest media" conspiracy to rig the election. And I'm sure a lot of you people would believe that if Donald Trump said it regardless of the fact that the record shows him lying repeatedly. He could tell you people you've got a third eye in the middle of your forehead and you'd believe him even though you're looking in the mirror and it's clearly not there.

I guess I could go with thinking it's a wash in the "corrupt" area. I don't think so but I guess I could see thinking that because it's somewhat subjective. But to call HIllary the most corrupt Presidential candidate ever when you've got this absolute atrocity of a con man who's stepped on people and cheated and/or scammed countless people who NEEDED their money out of it is just ridiculous.

Here you go, John. Pull your head out of the sand just long enough to read this "tip of the iceberg". Happy reading.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-0 ... liance-law

Really dude? REALlY?

[CAA Flagship]

[JohnStOnge]

The reason I posted the tin foil hat is that zerohedge is a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory web site. This is what Wikipedia says about it:

Zero Hedge has been characterized in the media as conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic,[3] occasionally producing misleading information.[4] Critics have alleged that the site "reliably peddles Russian propaganda".[5] Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey claimed he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."[1] Purported Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski countered that Lokey could write “anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.

That's Wikipedia, so there is some legtimate reason to be cautious. However, you can find other stuff like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rosenber ... nge-2015-1

He's clearly not a fan of Zero Hedge. More specifically, the chief economist at Gluskin Sheff thinks that the blog "is living on the lunatic fringe,"

You need to stick with mainstream sources. I know that's tough because you've bought into the Trump nonsense about the "dishonest media." But, i'm sorry, referring to something like zerohedge.com just doesn't do it.

[SDHornet]

JSO, does the DNC pay you per word, post or thread? How's that work?

Obviously it's by the word.

[CAA Flagship]

The reason I posted the tin foil hat is that zerohedge is a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory web site. This is what Wikipedia says about it:

Zero Hedge has been characterized in the media as conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic,[3] occasionally producing misleading information.[4] Critics have alleged that the site "reliably peddles Russian propaganda".[5] Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey claimed he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."[1] Purported Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski countered that Lokey could write “anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.

That's Wikipedia, so there is some legtimate reason to be cautious. However, you can find other stuff like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rosenber ... nge-2015-1

He's clearly not a fan of Zero Hedge. More specifically, the chief economist at Gluskin Sheff thinks that the blog "is living on the lunatic fringe,"

You need to stick with mainstream sources. I know that's tough because you've bought into the Trump nonsense about the "dishonest media." But, i'm sorry, referring to something like zerohedge.com just doesn't do it.

Why did you not look at the links and embedded documents then? I just used the article to point me in the direction of the corruption and lawbreaking. Stop being lazy and read the documents that are easily accessible from that site.

[kalm]

The reason I posted the tin foil hat is that zerohedge is a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory web site. This is what Wikipedia says about it:



That's Wikipedia, so there is some legtimate reason to be cautious. However, you can find other stuff like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rosenber ... nge-2015-1



You need to stick with mainstream sources. I know that's tough because you've bought into the Trump nonsense about the "dishonest media." But, i'm sorry, referring to something like zerohedge.com just doesn't do it.

Why did you not look at the links and embedded documents then? I just used the article to point me in the direction of the corruption and lawbreaking. Stop being lazy and read the documents that are easily accessible from that site.

This. And Zerohedge posts some quality unbiased stuff. It's not anymore biased or truthful than businessinsider.

JSO, your love affair the establishment media has caused you to become a low information voter.

[JohnStOnge]

Why did you not look at the links and embedded documents then? I just used the article to point me in the direction of the corruption and lawbreaking. Stop being lazy and read the documents that are easily accessible from that site.

I just randomly clicked on a link and got a Judicial Watch web page. I mean, come ON man. You're flipping going down the tinfoil hat highway all the way.

You know, there is a reason why the "mainstream media" are "mainstream." I have been conservative all my life but this stuff of railing against the "mainstream media" has got to stop. To a certain extent I agree there's a bias. But you don't go off the cliff by starting to believe things like Breitbart.com and Zerohedge.

[kalm]

Why did you not look at the links and embedded documents then? I just used the article to point me in the direction of the corruption and lawbreaking. Stop being lazy and read the documents that are easily accessible from that site.

I just randomly clicked on a link and got a Judicial Watch web page. I mean, come ON man. You're flipping going down the tinfoil hat highway all the way.

You know, there is a reason why the "mainstream media" are "mainstream." I have been conservative all my life but this stuff of railing against the "mainstream media" has got to stop. To a certain extent I agree there's a bias. But you don't go off the cliff by starting to believe things like Breitbart.com and Zerohedge.

The fact you equate zerohedge to Breitbart shows how little you know.

[houndawg]

Back to the subject matter. When I Google "corrupt," here is the definition that pops up at the top:

having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

How could anybody's behavior possibly fit that definition more than Donald Trump's? Example: The Trump University fraud. He charges people $10,000 to $35,000 apiece for totally useless courses. Of no value at all in terms of credentialing. Oh by the way he broke the laws of a number of States when he called it "Trump University" when it was not a university. And he made a commercial in which he say she hand picked the instructors when that was a complete lie.

Here are some quotes on the Trump University saga from http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/1 ... dia-frenzy:

6. Trump University was another massive con job. To start, Trump broke the laws of several states that only allowed an authorized institution to be called a university. Then Trump lied when he said he would personally pick the faculty, but when deposed under oath after being sued, admitted he had no idea who the faculty were. Johnston wrote, “His ‘faculty’ stood over students helping them take on all the credit card debt banks would give them to pay tuition and other fees to Trump U., leaving them with no capacity to invest in real estate.”

7. Paying off prosecutors via political donations to avoid charges. When former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott investigated Trump University, he found its teaching “worthless” and encouraging “illegal” actions, Johnston wrote. “The Texas attorney general’s lawyers concluded that if sued by the state, Trump would have no legal defenses to civil fraud charges.” Abbott did not sue, but later got a $35,000 campaign contribution from Trump. Much the same storyline unfolded in Florida, where Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to take action after receiving many complaints and Trump’s foundation illegally donated $25,000 to her re-election campaign. Tax-exempt charities aren’t allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

That's just one thing. There's LOTS of other stuff. He is, as Marco Rubio said, a total con man. It's how he operates. Constantly been dishonest in order to enrich himself. It is RIDICULOUS to call Hillary Clinton the most corrupt person to ever run for President when Donald Trump is in the race.

How does this make him any different than the rest of them? Hell, I may just toss him a vote, won't make a difference in either Illinois or my life. Now if I had CID's job I wouldn't be looking forward to being a laughingstock in every country I was posted to.