Wow, Trump ripping Hillary a new one

[320 Years of History]

While Candycorn is indeed a Hillary Shill, (paid or not is up to debate, i say not) Your reference to Trutherism (with bonus its teh JOOOOOOS flavor) makes me ask why aren't you slumming in the CT with the rest of the mouth breathers?

Well, I’m late in reporting in to my Mossad handlers so I’ll be brief.

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

It may well be he just discovered that book. It's clear Trump's accusations relied heavily on it. What's also clear is that neither he nor his campaign staff followed the Reagan doctrine of "trust, but verify." That's a damn shame because so many others have and the book and its author has been discredited for well over a year now.

• “Clinton Cash” Debunked
  
• 'Clinton Cash' Author Previously Involved In Discredited Shirley Sherrod Smear Campaign
  
• 'Clinton Cash' author owes Hillary Clinton an apology
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes

In typical Trump form, the man is pitifully and dereisorilly locked into a pattern of saying damn near anything without bothering to confirm whether it's true.

Trump has the nerve to have called Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted." In his speech today, he asserted that Mrs. Clinton is a "world class liar." Excuse me? Since when does the pot get to call the kettle black? According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

I mean really: 9% true or mostly true compared to just over 50% true or mostly true. For cryin' out loud! The man has more false and "pants on fire" claims, at nearly 60%, than Mrs. Clinton has true or mostly true. I'm sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. If there's an inveterate liar in the campaign, it's Trump.

Correct the record.org is a Hillary Superpac you know.

Nuff said.

It is, I do know that, and the reason I listed it is because it presents the various claims in a very well organized layout. That said....but...

• Look at the content they use to refute the noted claims. It's not just them saying so and leaving it at that. You'll note they provide a link to the source for each of their refutations.
• The content from Correct the Record isn't the only source I cited. Check the others if that's what you prefer. I provided five sources that roundly show the claims in that book to be specious. I did that precisely because I know that Correct the Record is a Clinton superpac.

It is not a objective or non-biased source.

It is a Hillary Superpac, thus not to be trusted.

Off Topic:
Red:

1. The truth and its context don't become less true or less relevant because speaker is biased or not. As a recipient of a message, it's one's burden to examine the content any speaker/writer delivers.
2. If you don't want to read and verify the content at Correct the Record, fine. That's on you...it's layout and linking of sources makes it easiest to do, but if you don't want to avail yourself of that facility, don't. I provided four additional sources. They aren't the only four that exist that rigorously show the mendacity in claims one finds in that book for what they are, taradiddles.

The fact of the matter is that I don't especially care for Mrs. Clinton or Trump. The candidates whom I did like lost their primary bids, so I'm left, as everyone else is, choosing between two people, neither of whom I'd like to see in the White House. That means I have to bother to check pretty much everything both of them says, or that is said on their behalf. You should do the same, and one way to do that is to get over the Correct the Record listing and use one or more of the many others that exist to do just that.

 

[Valerie]

just as much as she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary!

oh look, another stoopid talking point... but i'm the one supposedly embarrassing myself.

 

[Lilah]

She misspoke?

not really... but she took responsibility for the rabid misunderstanding and said that she misspoke.

she had to reword and put it a certain way in order to satisfy rabid partisans, but notice how they just lie no matter what.

She had to re-word?

 

[easyt65]

lying hacks will obviously feel free to continue foaming at the mouth over nonsense.

WHAT LYING HACK, Val? If you mean HILLARY I could not agree more.

You have seen Hillary's own quote that came out of her mouth - she claimed to have RAN WITH HER HEAD DOWN.

You have seen with your own eyes the video / photograph of Hillary laughing and shaking hands with a little girl amongst a crowd of people happily standing outside waiting to meet / greet Hillary! You SEE she is not running.



It's simple, Val:
Is she wearing a bullet-proof vest here?
Is Chelsea wearing a bullet-proof vest here?
Is ANYONE wearing a bullet-proof vest here?
Is she RUNNING from sniper fire here?
Is Chelsea RUNNING from sniper fire?
Is ANYONE running from sniper fire here?


How about HERE?

C'mon...say it with me...you can do it -- "NO!"

 

[easyt65]

just as much as she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary!

oh look, another stoopid talking point... but i'm the one supposedly embarrassing myself.

It's cute how every time Hillary gets caught lying you call it a 'talking point'!

 

[Valerie]

hillary has been wearing her political flack jacket and ducking under partisan sniper fire for DECADES.

the woman is simply amazingly capable and qualified... plus so gracious under fire!

 

[LaDexter]

hillary has been wearing her political flack jacket and ducking under partisan sniper fire for DECADES.

Indeed, that "partisan" sniper fire now originates from

Carl Bernstein
Rosie O'Donnell
Susan Sarandon
Jill Stein
Robert Scheer


The "vast right wing conspiracy" stuff ain't workin' no more. Those who were hating us in the 1990s for telling the truth now are hand in hand with us opposing Hillary.

 

[Valerie]

LIE #1 : “Now she [Hillary Clinton] wants to allow them to come into our country pretty much unvetted because every law enforcement person that I’ve spoken to and that you’ve watched and that you read is saying it’s very hard if not impossible to check out people. There are just no papers.”

THE TRUTH: PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that there was “no system to vet” refugees “False.” “Trump said there is ‘no system to vet’ refugees from the Middle East. While there are concerns about information gaps, a system does exist and has existed since 1980. It involves multiple federal intelligence and security agencies as well as the United Nations. Refugee vetting typically takes one to two years and includes numerous rounds of security checks. We rate Trump’s claim False.” [PolitiFact, 6/13/16]

PolitiFact: “Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States.” “Finally, we should note that refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So it ‘makes no operational sense’ for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program, Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University, told us previously. ‘Given how easy it is to send a European extremist to the U.S. via Europe, why would an ISIS guy in Syria wait the three years it takes to get refugee status?’ Speckhard said.” [PolitiFact, 6/13/16]

LIE #2: “I spent my own money. I didn’t have people giving me millions of millions of dollars.”

THE TRUTH: More than half of Donald Trump’s campaign spending in 2015 was funded by donations. “Mr. Trump’s campaign spent just $12.4 million in 2015, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission, millions less than any of his leading rivals for the Republican nomination. More than half of Mr. Trump’s total spending was covered by checks from his supporters, who have thronged to his stump speeches and bought millions of dollars’ worth of ‘Make America Great Again’ hats and T-shirts.” [New York Times, 2/5/16]

LIE #3: “I will tell you, the LGBT community, the gay community, the lesbian community, they are so much in favor of what i’ve been saying over the last three or four days.”

THE TRUTH: “LGBT leaders to Trump: Don’t target Muslims in our name … LGBT community leaders have made a point to say the shooting should not be used to demonize the Muslim community, as they embraced an affinity between two groups that have faced persecution.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/14/16]

LIE #4: “We have all these [NATO] nations. And from what I understand they don’t they’re bills….Some aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying.”

THE TRUTH: Washington Post Fact Checker gave Donald Trump’s claim that other members of NATO pay “virtually nothing” compared to the United States a rating of “Three Pinocchios.” “To sum up, Trump is simply wrong on direct funding and is imprecise and possibly out of date on indirect funding. It’s certainly false to say that most of the other NATO members pay ‘virtually nothing.’ That results in a blended rating of between Two and Three Pinocchios. We tipped toward Three because he shouldn’t make such statements if his campaign is not prepared to explain them. Three Pinocchios” [Washington Post, 3/30/16]

Washington Post Fact Checker: “Despite Trump’s claim that the United States is spending ‘billions and billions’ on NATO, Defense Department budget documents show the annual direct contribution is under $500 million a year.” “Here’s the full breakdown for the 2016-2017 budget period. (NSIP, one of three elements listed, refers to the NATO Security Investment Program). In 2012, the Congressional Research Service produced a report that looked at direct funding in detail. Despite Trump’s claim that the United States is spending ‘billions and billions’ on NATO, Defense Department budget documents show the annual direct contribution is under $500 million a year. By this metric, Trump’s claims of the U.S. paying a disproportionate share, or ‘a lion’s share,’ are wildly exaggerated. The U.S. pays the most, but not significantly more than the next country — and the formula for calculating the different shares is reasonable.” [Washington Post, 3/30/16]

LIE #5 “Last week on the front page of the Wall Street Journal—headline: NATO to set up terrorism group. Exactly what I said… Believe me folks if I didn’t bring it up you would never have it.”

THE TRUTH: NATO official: The terrorism initiative was under consideration for “some time” before Donald Trump’s comments. “‘I’ve said NATO needs to change its focus and stop terrorism. We have to focus on terrorism. And we have to stop terrorism. Since I’ve raised that criticism, and it’s OK, I’ve gotten no credit for it, but it’s OK, NATO has announced a new initiative … four days ago focused on just that.’ A NATO official told POLITICO last week that its plan to create the new position of assistant secretary general for intelligence had been under consideration for ‘some time’ and had ‘no connection to any national election campaign.’” [Politico, 6/13/16]

LIE #6: TRUMP CLAIMS HE NEVER WANTED JAPAN TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS “Hillary Clinton goes around saying Donald Trump wants Japan to go nuclear. I don’t want Japan to go nuclear folks.”

THE TRUTH: PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that he didn’t say he wanted “Japan to get nuclear weapons” a rating of “Mostly False.” “Trump said Clinton has spoken ‘such lies about my foreign policy. They said I want Japan to nuke, that I want Japan to get nuclear weapons. Give me a break.’ Trump didn’t literally say he wants Japan to go nuclear. But he came just about as close as someone can without saying those specific words — certainly enough to undermine his flip dismissal, ‘Give me a break.’ On more than one occasion, Trump publicly said that Japan, and the United States, might be better off if Japan had nuclear weapons, and he declined multiple attempts by interviewers to backtrack from that view. We rate Trump’s statement Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 6/2/16]

LIE #7: “South Korea. I love South Korea. We have 28,000 soldier ont he line between North and South. They pay us peanuts…. They pay us peanuts compared to the cost.”

THE TRUTH: PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. got “practically nothing compared to the cost of” keeping military forces in South Korea as “Mostly False.” “Trump said, ‘We get practically nothing compared to the cost of’ keeping U.S. military forces in South Korea. Currently, South Korea pays well over $800 million annually to support the United States’ troop presence, an amount that doesn’t qualify as ‘practically nothing.’ And while Trump makes it sound like the United States’ willingness to pay the rest of the freight amounts to a gift to South Korea, he overlooks that the United States actually benefits significantly on a strategic level from the arrangement. We rate the claim Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 1/10/16]

PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that South Korea did not compensate the U.S. for its military presence in the country as “False.” “‘If you look at North Korea, South Korea, we’re protecting South Korea,’ Trump said. ‘They’re making a fortune. Let’s call it hundreds of billions of dollars of profit on us. We have 25,000 soldiers over there protecting them. They don’t pay us. Why don’t they pay us?’ […] South Korea has signed an agreement to cover labor, logistical and construction costs running into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. That may or may not be a big enough payment, but Trump is wrong to suggest that South Korea bears no financial burden at all. We rate his statement False.” [PolitiFact, 4/1/11]

LIE #8: “For years I was saying don’t get into Iraq. From the beginning by the way.”

THE TRUTH: PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that he “was totally against the war in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East” a rating of “False.” “Trump said, ‘I was totally against the war in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East.’ The record shows at best some early reservations about the war that evolved into opposition about a year after the war began. However, we find no evidence of Trump warning about regional destabilization before or after the war started. We rate this statement False.” [PolitiFact, 4/27/16]

PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that he “said it loud and clear” that the Iraq war would destabilize the Middle East “False.” “On the Iraq war, Trump said, ‘I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.’ ‘ Maybe Trump felt this way privately, but he made no publicly reported comments in the lead-up to the Iraq War that reflect this sentiment. He certainly did not say it ‘loud and clear.’ We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion, and he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. He only started publicly denouncing the war after it started. Because he far overstated how loudly he declared his position on the Iraq War, we’re cranking the rating on this statement up to False.” [PolitiFact, 2/14/16]

LIE #9: “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and we’re going to protect it.”

THE TRUTH: Politifact rated Donald Trump’s claim that “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment” “False.” “Trump said, ‘Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.’ We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, and the bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite. She has repeatedly said she wants to protect the right to bear arms while enacting measures to prevent gun violence. Gun advocates say Trump’s claim is backed up by Clinton’s openness to a gun buyback program and her disagreement with a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. But whether or not these two cherry-picked comments actually reveal Clinton’s intentions is a matter of interpretation. For this claim to hold water, the support for Second Amendment abolition needs to be more direct. So we rate it False.” [Politifact, 5/11/16]

• Next

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, I’m late in reporting in to my Mossad handlers so I’ll be brief.

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

It may well be he just discovered that book. It's clear Trump's accusations relied heavily on it. What's also clear is that neither he nor his campaign staff followed the Reagan doctrine of "trust, but verify." That's a damn shame because so many others have and the book and its author has been discredited for well over a year now.

• “Clinton Cash” Debunked
  
• 'Clinton Cash' Author Previously Involved In Discredited Shirley Sherrod Smear Campaign
  
• 'Clinton Cash' author owes Hillary Clinton an apology
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes

In typical Trump form, the man is pitifully and dereisorilly locked into a pattern of saying damn near anything without bothering to confirm whether it's true.

Trump has the nerve to have called Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted." In his speech today, he asserted that Mrs. Clinton is a "world class liar." Excuse me? Since when does the pot get to call the kettle black? According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

I mean really: 9% true or mostly true compared to just over 50% true or mostly true. For cryin' out loud! The man has more false and "pants on fire" claims, at nearly 60%, than Mrs. Clinton has true or mostly true. I'm sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. If there's an inveterate liar in the campaign, it's Trump.

Correct the record.org is a Hillary Superpac you know.

Nuff said.

It is, I do know that, and the reason I listed it is because it presents the various claims in a very well organized layout. That said....but...

• Look at the content they use to refute the noted claims. It's not just them saying so and leaving it at that. You'll note they provide a link to the source for each of their refutations.
• The content from Correct the Record isn't the only source I cited. Check the others if that's what you prefer. I provided five sources that roundly show the claims in that book to be specious. I did that precisely because I know that Correct the Record is a Clinton superpac.

It is not a objective or non-biased source.

It is a Hillary Superpac, thus not to be trusted.

Off Topic:
Red:

1. The truth and its context don't become less true or less relevant because speaker is biased or not. As a recipient of a message, it's one's burden to examine the content any speaker/writer delivers.
2. If you don't want to read and verify the content at Correct the Record, fine. That's on you...it's layout and linking of sources makes it easiest to do, but if you don't want to avail yourself of that facility, don't. I provided four additional sources. They aren't the only four that exist that rigorously show the mendacity in claims one finds in that book for what they are, taradiddles.

The fact of the matter is that I don't especially care for Mrs. Clinton or Trump. The candidates whom I did like lost their primary bids, so I'm left, as everyone else is, choosing between two people, neither of whom I'd like to see in the White House. That means I have to bother to check pretty much everything both of them says, or that is said on their behalf. You should do the same, and one way to do that is to get over the Correct the Record listing and use one or more of the many others that exist to do just that.

Only a fool listens to a known propaganda arm of Hillary Clinton. That's the first flag to go up. Every single time somebody tells me what I already know is bullshit I question the source. You can't change my mind by using references that are already suspect themselves and have proved in the past to be nothing but propaganda from other liberally biased sources. This is how they perpetuate the constant misinformation we get from 90% of the media. You'd be better served to ignore this site completely and just Google the topics yourself, then you can objectively look through what's out there. Better yet avoid Google because they use algorithms that steer us away from anything that shows Hillary in a negative light. Bing is much more reliable.

 

[Meathead]

hillary has been wearing her political flack jacket and ducking under partisan sniper fire for DECADES.

the woman is simply amazingly capable and qualified... plus so gracious under fire!

She was not only gracious but exceedingly calm as sniper bullets were whizzing by her head. Shortly after returning stateside, she was kicked out of public housing and was, by her own account, "dead broke".

America should be ashamed!

 

[easyt65]

hillary has been wearing her political flack jacket and ducking under partisan sniper fire for DECADES.

the woman is simply amazingly capable and qualified... plus so gracious under fire!

Thank you for admitting that she is indeed NOT wearing a flak vest and NOT running from sniper fire as she FALSELY CLAIMED. The sad thing is that there are Americans like you who are so loyal to a political party and / or to an individual that you are willing to defend such liars, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence, which makes you look ridiculous.

It's beyond sad that political leaders / parties have divided and conditioned some Americans so deeply that they will defend their leaders' / party's criminal actions and lies for the benefit of that one individual or party above what is best for this country.

I am not asking you to vote for Trump. I am not asking you to believe Trump is not a liar or is 'better' than Hillary. I just asked you t be honest about what you saw in a picture, and you are so rabidly partisan you could not even do that.

Good luck with that in the future. Have a nice day. God bless.

 

[edthecynic]

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

The DISCREDITED book you mean!

 

[mudwhistle]

hillary has been wearing her political flack jacket and ducking under partisan sniper fire for DECADES.

the woman is simply amazingly capable and qualified... plus so gracious under fire!

She was not only gracious but exceedingly calm as sniper bullets were whizzing by her head. Shortly after returning stateside, she was kicked out of public housing and was, by her own account, "dead broke".

America should be ashamed!

Hillary is a rock, willing to stand up to sniper fire as well as stand up for peasants who are being subjugated by the very banks and companies that funded her campaign.

 

[mudwhistle]

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

The DISCREDITED book you mean!

Yep.....they're factual, thus discredited by pundits and spokespersons who support this wonderful woman who has been attacked all of her professional life.

Gandi move the fuck over. Here comes Hillary.

 

[edthecynic]

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

The DISCREDITED book you mean!

Yep.....they're factual, thus discredited by pundits and spokespersons who support this wonderful woman who has been attacked all of her professional life.

Gandi move the fuck over. Here comes Hillary.

The AUTHOR discredited his own book!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

poor Drumpf....

 

[Lakhota]

Watch the Hillary apologist come out and say every sentence is a lie.
Prove it.

Adolf Trump is a world-class projectionist.

Projection

Projection (Psychological)

1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

2) A way to blame others for your own negative thoughts by repressing them and then attributing them to someone else. Due to the sorrowful nature of delusion and denial it is very difficult for the target to be able to clarify the reality of the situation.

3) A way to transfer guilt for your own thoughts, emotions and actions onto another as a way of not admitting your guilt to yourself.

Urban Dictionary: Projection

speaking of Adolf... or admiration of Adolf....

Did you know Ivana Trump claimed he kept a book of Hitler's Speeches in his bedside cabinet and read it at night before going to sleep... just read that today....from a Vanity Fair Article from the 1990's....

Yes, I've known that for several months - and have posted several comments about it.

 

[Meathead]

poor Drumpf....

Please accept this as simply trying to fathom the mind of a dingbat, but what is the point of a post like this?

 

[AntonToo]

No equivalency to Trump?

Hillary allowed 4 Americans to needlessly die just to help protect Obama's chances to be re-elected...

Ridiculous.

Sht happens, people get killed, doesn't mean Hillary has made decisions she did with some sort of crystal ball as to this tragic outcome. Those four Americans dying certainly did no favors for anyone in the administration, especially not for Hillary, so even from callous political self interest perspective such stories simply don't add up.

People died all the time in Iraq, no one gave a sht, but a handful of American deaths in Libya has conservatives claiming everything just short of Hillary hiring the hit-men for that job.
.

 

[Valerie]

It's beyond sad that political leaders / parties have divided and conditioned some Americans so deeply that they will defend their leaders' / party's criminal actions and lies for the benefit of that one individual or party above what is best for this country.

see how you lie? i'm not loyal to party over country, liar.

i get behind the candidate who i think will serve the country best.

you just hack and hammer and pretend you have more integrity than everybody else..



btw "putting party over country" was 2012 pre-election rethuglicans pouncing on benghazi before our ambassador's body was even cold, and perpetuating false talking points which undermine our country amidst complex diplomatic efforts.

once upon a time in America, that sort of disgusting partisanship was unheard of, and hillary is the only candidate who gets that... she is the one capable of carrying the office of the presidency with the dignity the job requires...

nobody would be happier than i, to see the Republican party image restored to more honorable but they just keep sliding in the wrong direction...

Congratulations, GOP, You’ve Created a Monster

Veteran: Trump Will Throw the Military into 'Crisis'

5 Things You Should Know About Hillary Clinton

​