Why does every discussion turn into insults? Why do people state lies as fact? How about one thread with just facts.

Hint, just because David Brock from progressive site mediamatters.org says something, does not make it fact.

Because facts get in the way. It's much easier to win a point with conjecture, lies and obfuscation. And, if that doesn't work, they can always resort to name calling.

Of course, there is the problem that it seems we really don't get facts any more. It seems more and more "news" is based on opinion rather than truth.

Red

Now the bar is set high. We shall see.

I will start.
Every day, it seems, more emails and or evidence of Clinton wrong doing is released.

Yet there is little or no mention by the media. In fact commentary from the media is more than obvious by their absence. It is easy to conclude the media is either biased or managed or both.

In any case if they treated Trump information the same as the Clinton information what would it sound like? Quiet and no comment.

The main stream media has deteiorated in substance and credibility with their bias. Unfortunately like the dems they don't care.

The Associated Press, widely accepted as fair, if not slightly left reports facts as follows:


WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity.....

Hmmm. My following statement is not a fact: I think these meetings were to discuss yoga.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

Just to add to the wonderful post above from the AP:

"The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.:

Originally Posted by Guest

Just to add to the wonderful post above from the AP:

"The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.:

This is just so factual and certainly has the "appearance" of conflict of interest.

I can't wait for more emails to be released, my "opinion" is that eventually clinton won't be able to blame it on a Russian plan. They will come out with something even more bizarre. I can't wait to see their new defense.

Originally Posted by Guest

Because facts get in the way. It's much easier to win a point with conjecture, lies and obfuscation. And, if that doesn't work, they can always resort to name calling.

Of course, there is the problem that it seems we really don't get facts any more. It seems more and more "news" is based on opinion rather than truth.

Red

One of the few times I agree with you

Originally Posted by Guest

This is just so factual and certainly has the "appearance" of conflict of interest.

I can't wait for more emails to be released, my "opinion" is that eventually clinton won't be able to blame it on a Russian plan. They will come out with something even more bizarre. I can't wait to see their new defense.

"Appearance of conflict of interest" When people only listen to Fox News appearance is really.

Clinton Campaign Hits Back at AP Story on Family Foundation | US News

How much money did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea receive from the Foundation? That would be zero. Fox News reports that only 9% was donated to charities from the Foundation. They fail to say that 85+% was spent on the ground helping people in need in Africa. It is a working foundation.

Take a look in the article. it states that nothing they did violates the agreement they signed with the Obama administration.

For the next two months, facts be damned. As far is Trump is concerned, how can you believe anything that he says. Trump's new female mouthpiece was asked over seven times by CNN, if Trump has changed his views on deporting illegals. She never answered the question. The words coming out of her mouth made absolutely no sense at all. They won't even answer a simple question. They could care less about facts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now the bar is set high. We shall see.

I will start.
Every day, it seems, more emails and or evidence of Clinton wrong doing is released.

Yet there is little or no mention by the media. In fact commentary from the media is more than obvious by their absence. It is easy to conclude the media is either biased or managed or both.

In any case if they treated Trump information the same as the Clinton information what would it sound like? Quiet and no comment.

The main stream media has deteiorated in substance and credibility with their bias. Unfortunately like the dems they don't care.

Although my opinion is that I agree with you 100% but I want facts.

Like this...

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican - POLITICO

Politico which is center/left says only 7%of the media is Republican. Hmmmmp, interesting.

You are correct, I apologize.

We made it thru 8 posts without explitives.....amazing!

Originally Posted by Guest

The Associated Press, widely accepted as fair, if not slightly left reports facts as follows:


WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity.....

Hmmm. My following statement is not a fact: I think these meetings were to discuss yoga.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

I hope you realize how totally unacceptable your post is.

She met with far more than 154 people from private interests while Secy of State....far more.

Come on...get real..she was a senator, first lady, etc. I think more than 154 people....many many more....visited her. The Clintons are friends with a lot of people and your "fact" is that she met with 154 over the years as SSTATE ????

"Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.

According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom."

The AP’s big expose on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess - Vox

I AM TYPING IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM HOPING THIS LAST PART WILL AT LEAST GET A CURSORY GLANCE....

I am not a Clinton supporter, actually....well, it matters not. I refer to post #2 which is true. TOTALLY

The only way to get to real facts is do your own investigation and reading. Now, of course most....the largest majority of Americans are too lazy or brainwashed to do that, thus.......WE GET THE TWO CANDIDATES THAT WE HAVE IN THIS ELECTION.

Certainly anyone with any knowledge of facts would never vote for neither of these two.

A few examples......did you know....

"Donald Trump has real problems being truthful, as evidenced by the record number of “Pants on Fire” ratings he’s received from Politifact.

Now it seems Trump has flat-out fabricated an encounter he supposedly had with a “top” Chicago police officer.

NBC Chicago is reporting that the Chicago Police Department is pushing back on Trump’s claim that a “top” Chicago cop told him that the city’s violence could be stopped in a week if he were allowed to employ unspecified “tough police tactics.”

“We’ve discredited this claim months ago,” CPD spokesperson Frank Giancamilli said in a statement. “No one in the senior command at CPD has ever met with Donald Trump or a member of his campaign.”



"The Chicago Police Department on Tuesday denied Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's claim that he met with a "top" Chicago officer and argued the city's violence would not be solved with "tough police tactics."
"We've discredited this claim months ago," CPD spokesperson Frank Giancamilli said in a statement. "No one in the senior command at CPD has ever met with Donald Trump or a member of his campaign."


Source: Police Respond to Donald Trump's Claim That Chicago's Violence Can Be Stopped In A Week | NBC Chicago Police Respond to Donald Trump's Claim That Chicago's Violence Can Be Stopped In A Week | NBC Chicago
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

Now if you support Trump, you buy into his lies and this is just another one to chew on and THINK you are informed but he lied to you all.

Then this.....

"The Trump Presidential campaign rolled out its first major television ad last week, aimed at voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. For Social Security experts and advocates, it wasn’t worth waiting for.

“In Hillary Clinton’s America, the system stays rigged against Americans,” the ad declares. “Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line.”

Bluntly speaking, these statements about Social Security are untrue.

Here are the lies about Social Security in Donald Trump's new nationwide ad - LA Times

So, again, Trump lied to you....you all ok with that ????

Originally Posted by Guest

I hope you realize how totally unacceptable your post is.

She met with far more than 154 people from private interests while Secy of State....far more.

Come on...get real..she was a senator, first lady, etc. I think more than 154 people....many many more....visited her. The Clintons are friends with a lot of people and your "fact" is that she met with 154 over the years as SSTATE ????

"Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.

According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom."

The AP’s big expose on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess - Vox

I AM TYPING IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM HOPING THIS LAST PART WILL AT LEAST GET A CURSORY GLANCE....

I am not a Clinton supporter, actually....well, it matters not. I refer to post #2 which is true. TOTALLY

The only way to get to real facts is do your own investigation and reading. Now, of course most....the largest majority of Americans are too lazy or brainwashed to do that, thus.......WE GET THE TWO CANDIDATES THAT WE HAVE IN THIS ELECTION.

Certainly anyone with any knowledge of facts would never vote for neither of these two.

A few examples......did you know....

"Donald Trump has real problems being truthful, as evidenced by the record number of “Pants on Fire” ratings he’s received from Politifact.

Now it seems Trump has flat-out fabricated an encounter he supposedly had with a “top” Chicago police officer.

NBC Chicago is reporting that the Chicago Police Department is pushing back on Trump’s claim that a “top” Chicago cop told him that the city’s violence could be stopped in a week if he were allowed to employ unspecified “tough police tactics.”

“We’ve discredited this claim months ago,” CPD spokesperson Frank Giancamilli said in a statement. “No one in the senior command at CPD has ever met with Donald Trump or a member of his campaign.”



"The Chicago Police Department on Tuesday denied Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's claim that he met with a "top" Chicago officer and argued the city's violence would not be solved with "tough police tactics."
"We've discredited this claim months ago," CPD spokesperson Frank Giancamilli said in a statement. "No one in the senior command at CPD has ever met with Donald Trump or a member of his campaign."


Source: Police Respond to Donald Trump's Claim That Chicago's Violence Can Be Stopped In A Week | NBC Chicago Police Respond to Donald Trump's Claim That Chicago's Violence Can Be Stopped In A Week | NBC Chicago
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

Now if you support Trump, you buy into his lies and this is just another one to chew on and THINK you are informed but he lied to you all.

Then this.....

"The Trump Presidential campaign rolled out its first major television ad last week, aimed at voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. For Social Security experts and advocates, it wasn’t worth waiting for.

“In Hillary Clinton’s America, the system stays rigged against Americans,” the ad declares. “Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line.”

Bluntly speaking, these statements about Social Security are untrue.

Here are the lies about Social Security in Donald Trump's new nationwide ad - LA Times

So, again, Trump lied to you....you all ok with that ????

Vox, really!!! the organization that called for anti trump RIOTS!!!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Vox, really!!! the organization that called for anti trump RIOTS!!!!!

Your comment on the other lie ?

Lots more bold faced lies to come

Which lie in particular?

Let's be clear...

The report on Clinton visitors and giving money to her charity is an insinuation with not only no proof of wrong doing, but no charge of wrong doing.

The lies Trump tells are factual, and meaningful.

What sane man makes up meetings like the one in Chicago ? What sane man actually lies as he did on donations to vets until media caught him ?

If you want to compare "apples and " oranges, as in the Clinton story, let's discuss Trumps relationships with mob bosses. All insinuation, I understand but no difference.

Wonder if Trump who supposedly gave 100000.00 to the charity he now trashes was ever one of those visitors.