The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Except that I can point to something like Politifact rating 69% of Trump's rated statements as Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire vs. 26% in those categories combined for Clinton.

And I can point to stuff like Trump on national TV saying that the NFL wrote him a letter expressing concern over the debate schedule then having the NFL saying "no we didn't." Or I can point to a Youtube video if you really want me to look it up where Trump claims during a debate that he didn't advocate the United States interferring in Lybia then you flash to him saying we should use our military directly to do it. Or I can point to him making a Trump University promo where he looks earnestly into the camera and says he hand picked the instructors then link articles saying he later had to say in depositions that he had no involvement in picking the instructors. On and on.

He is indeed a more prolific, frequent liar than Hillary is and at this point I can't even believe anyone who has been paying any attention would argue otherwise.

And let me say this: If you want to say Hillary lied about something there is going to be an out. There's going to be some possible argument that she wasn't lying. But when you have somebody say the NFL wrote them a letter then have the NFL say "no we didn't" there's no out. And whey you have somebody say he hand picked the instructors for his scam "university" then later have to admit in a deposition that he didn't there's no out.

It's not even a close. Trump is worse than Clinton when it comes to lying.

I quit reading right there. A liberal organization saying a liberal candidate doesn't lie as much as the republican one. I'm shocked I tell you.

I knew that was coming. It's what Trump people do. You've got an organization telling you that Trump lies more than anybody and it's not even close so since it's not telling you what you want to hear it's "a liberal organization."

That's the problem with Trump supporters. No matter what you do they find some excuse for avoiding the Truth with respect to what the guy they are supporting is. Not interested in reality.

BTW, this is what that media fact check site I've been referencing has to say about Politifact:



And the "Factual Reporting" rating is "Very High."

But of course you will say that the media bias site is "liberal" because it's not telling you what you want to hear. That's what Trump supporters do.

[Skjellyfetti]

It's in the purple section. Purple means it has some blue bias. Needs to be in the red area of the spectrum to be free of blue bias.

[JohnStOnge]

It's in the purple section. Purple means it has some blue bias. Needs to be in the red area of the spectrum to be free of blue bias.

There has never been any evidence that Politifact is biased. Has it made mistakes? I'm sure it has. But there has never been evidence that it's biased. It's always been about Trump supporters seeing the obvious evidence on the Politifact site that Trump spews false information at a completely unprecedented rate and trying to find some reason not to accept the truth.

The Trump phenomenon is truly frightening. You have this guy who is OBVIOUSLY a total atrocity. OBVIOUSLY a total con man who lies practically every time he opens his mouth. Yet you have these people worshiping him like he's flipping Jesus Christ.

And look, I am a conservative saying that. You, Sky, know that. What's going on now is absolutely horrible for the conservative movement. It's losing all credibility.

[CID1990]

Trust me

I can see the little bald spot on top of your head from here

Dude...


There is no bald spot on the top of my pointy head

look again

denial is the first step to acceptance



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

And you know it's more than just stuff like Politifact you Trump people. Like the thing where he made an ad saying that he hand picked teachers for Trump University. First of all, do you SERIOUSLY doubt that the whole Trump University thing was a scam? Seriously?

Second, there is NO doubt that he was lying when he said that. He later admitted that he didn't have anything to do with selecting those people in a deposition. Would YOU do something like that? Are you going to defend the integrity of someone who would do that? And would YOU scam people out of tens of thousands of dollars each with something like that Trump University thing?

Or like when he said during a debate that he didn't support getting involved in Lybia. Total lie:

phpBB [video]

Or like when he said the NFL wrote him a letter. I mean come ON people. You don't even NEED Politifact to tell you how bad this guy is when it comes to lying. Attacking Politifact for just telling you the truth about this guy is just off the wall.

[kalm]

Dude...


There is no bald spot on the top of my pointy head

look again

denial is the first step to acceptance



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were in a position to see the top of Cleet's head!

[Grizalltheway]

look again

denial is the first step to acceptance



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were in a position to see the top of Cleet's head!

Maybe it was the sucky-sucky he was standing next to, but Cid appears to be about 6'8".

[CID1990]

look again

denial is the first step to acceptance



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were in a position to see the top of Cleet's head!

From my Stratospheric Steed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

All of you...

[Ivytalk]

It's in the purple section. Purple means it has some blue bias. Needs to be in the red area of the spectrum to be free of blue bias.

And look, I am a conservative saying that. You, Sky, know that. What's going on now is absolutely horrible for the conservative movement. It's losing all credibility.

Look, Ma! I'm a conservative!

And who's "Sky"?

[Ivytalk]

And you know it's more than just stuff like Politifact you Trump people. Like the thing where he made an ad saying that he hand picked teachers for Trump University. First of all, do you SERIOUSLY doubt that the whole Trump University thing was a scam? Seriously?

Second, there is NO doubt that he was lying when he said that. He later admitted that he didn't have anything to do with selecting those people in a deposition. Would YOU do something like that? Are you going to defend the integrity of someone who would do that? And would YOU scam people out of tens of thousands of dollars each with something like that Trump University thing?

Or like when he said during a debate that he didn't support getting involved in Lybia. Total lie:

phpBB [video]

Or like when he said the NFL wrote him a letter. I mean come ON people. You don't even NEED Politifact to tell you how bad this guy is when it comes to lying. Attacking Politifact for just telling you the truth about this guy is just off the wall.

Where's Lybia? Womyn have labia.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump out of touch with reality again. Maybe that or maybe just lying again. Anyway, now it has to do with the latest ABC News Washington Post poll showing that he has the lowest approval rating for the first 6 months of his presidency during the 70 years in which such polls have been conducted.

Trump's response?

The ABC/Washington Post Poll, even though almost 40% is not bad at this time, was just about the most inaccurate poll around election time!”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... al-ratings

Let's review. Here is a table showing what the last ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll had to say about the popular vote vs. the actual vote:



See https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5952.html .

So, right. We can ignore a poll that shows 56% disapproval vs. 39% approval because the polling institution was THAT far off on its last estimate for the general election. Problem is, the estimates for the general election are very close.

You can stop reading now because the point is made. But if you're interested, if you REALLY want to evaluate how close the pre election poll is, you need to adjust it for the total percentage of people who voted for one of the four candidates named. In this case, in the final pre election poll, 95% of the respondents said they'd vote for the final four. There were some undecided people.

Of course, in the actual vote, there are no undecided people. Everybody who voted voted. And in the actual vote 98.7 percent of the people voted for one of the four candidates the pollsters asked about.

If you adjust for that this is what you get in terms of what the ABC News/Washington Post poll estimated vs. the actual result:



The ABC News Washington Post poll, which is one of only 6 polls rated A+ by 538, was VERY close on the actual results for the overall popular vote. Trump is either really ignorant or he's lying. Or both.

[JohnStOnge]

The fact that there are 10s of millions of people in this country who take this guy seriously and actually think he belongs in the job he's in right now is very discouraging.

[Ivytalk]

The fact that there are 10s of millions of people in this country who take this guy seriously and actually think he belongs in the job he's in right now is very discouraging.

You just had to add that "P.S.", didn't you?

You can really step back and relax. Slow cleansing breaths. Ommmmm.....

[CID1990]

JSO

Nobody ever reads beyond the first sentence of your epistles


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

The fact that there are 10s of millions of people in this country who take this guy seriously and actually think he belongs in the job he's in right now is very discouraging.

You just had to add that "P.S.", didn't you?

You can really step back and relax. Slow cleansing breaths. Ommmmm.....

Yes I thought about putting it in the previous post but I think that it's a thought that deserves its own space.

I'm very relaxed. If you knew me personally you'd know that. I am one of the calmest, most relaxed people you are ever going to meet.

But I do note what's going on in society and will say that it is discouraging to see the United States put an atrocity like Trump into a position like that. Just adds to my cynicism about the state of the US population. I am one of those people who thinks that our system of government ultimately depends on having some reasonable level of quality in the population. And whether we have some reasonable level of quality in the population has never been more in question than it is now.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO

Nobody ever reads beyond the first sentence of your epistles


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine. I enjoy writing them nonetheless. Of course you don't know that because you didn't read past "that's fine."

[JohnStOnge]

For people with short attention spans: Trump dismissed an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing him having the lowest approval ratings at this point of his presidency of any President in 70 years by saying the ABC News/Washington Post poll was way off on the general election. But the ABC News/Washington Post poll was very close with respect to the general election. It was correct about who would win the popular vote. And it was very close in terms of how much the winner would win by.

If you want details and are able to maintain focus while reading more than 86 words you can read the long version.

[CAA Flagship]

You just had to add that "P.S.", didn't you?

You can really step back and relax. Slow cleansing breaths. Ommmmm.....

Yes I thought about putting it in the previous post but I think that it's a thought that deserves its own space.

I'm very relaxed. If you knew me personally you'd know that. I am one of the calmest, most relaxed people you are ever going to meet.

But I do note what's going on in society and will say that it is discouraging to see the United States put an atrocity like Trump into a position like that. Just adds to my cynicism about the state of the US population. I am one of those people who thinks that our system of government ultimately depends on having some reasonable level of quality in the population. And whether we have some reasonable level of quality in the population has never been more in question than it is now.

[kalm]

JSO

Nobody ever reads beyond the first sentence of your epistles


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine. I enjoy writing them nonetheless. Of course you don't know that because you didn't read past "that's fine."

Boom! Burn!!!

[CID1990]

That's fine. I enjoy writing them nonetheless. Of course you don't know that because you didn't read past "that's fine."

Boom! Burn!!!

Nobody reads yours either

BTW what did JSO say after "That's fine."?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Boom! Burn!!!

Nobody reads yours either



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine.

[HI54UNI]

For people with short attention spans: Trump dismissed an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing him having the lowest approval ratings at this point of his presidency of any President in 70 years by saying the ABC News/Washington Post poll was way off on the general election. But the ABC News/Washington Post poll was very close with respect to the general election. It was correct about who would win the popular vote. And it was very close in terms of how much the winner would win by.

If you want details and are able to maintain focus while reading more than 86 words you can read the long version.

I don't care enough to go searching to see if this is true but maybe you will. I just saw something that claims the margin of error in the poll is 3.5% and the breakdown of those polled was 35% democrats, 23% republicans, and 35% independents.

Do you see a potential problem here if true?

[Skjellyfetti]

FINALLY!

Small guvmint conservatism!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.

Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.

Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.

In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.

“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.

In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... e505bdb71b

[Ivytalk]

FINALLY!

Small guvmint conservatism!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.

Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.

Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.

In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.

“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.

In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... e505bdb71b

I'll forgive your total lack of understanding of libertarian thought, but asset forfeiture is anathema to any real libertarian. Goes hand in glove with a screwed-up drug enforcement policy. Sessions is wack.

Whatever happened to GOOD attorneys general? The last 3 -- Sessions, Lynch, and Holder -- were spectacularly bad. Looking back at a list of AGs since I was a kid, only Mike Mukasey and Ed Levi make the grade in my book. A few mediocrities, but most flat-out sucked.