Campaign 2016

[Emily]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovIQhbOFLB0

[Emily]

As I suspected,  a little time would bring a reasonable explanation - search for "Al Capone cri" FdP. You will see that it will not autocomplete with "Al Capone crime" because "crime" is one of Google's list of disparaging words that it won't attach to a name in a search. So it's simply that Yahoo's and Bing's algorithms are a little more rude than Google's.

A video could just as easily have been made showing that if you go to Yahoo! or Bing and type in "Donald Trump frau" it will autofill "Donald Trump fraud," but Google doesn't. And the other two will give you "Donald Trump racist" for "Donald Trump rac" but Google doesn't.

I explain to my daughter frequently that she shouldn't believe everything she hears and that she should check sources before she believes or repeats a story. It would seem that most adults haven't learned that yet.

It's many times now that you've posted "news" items from gossip or muckraking sites that have been as many times shown to be wrong. If you insist on getting news from disreputable sources, please fact-check it before you spread it.

[filledeplage]

As I suspected,  a little time would bring a reasonable explanation - search for "Al Capone cri" FdP. You will see that it will not autocomplete with "Al Capone crime" because "crime" is one of Google's list of disparaging words that it won't attach to a name in a search. So it's simply that Yahoo's and Bing's algorithms are a little more rude than Google's.

A video could just as easily have been made showing that if you go to Yahoo! or Bing and type in "Donald Trump frau" it will autofill "Donald Trump fraud," but Google doesn't. And the other two will give you "Donald Trump racist" for "Donald Trump rac" but Google doesn't.

I explain to my daughter frequently that she shouldn't believe everything she hears and that she should check sources before she believes or repeats a story. It would seem that most adults haven't learned that yet.

It's many times now that you've posted "news" items from gossip or muckraking sites that have been as many times shown to be wrong. If you insist on getting news from disreputable sources, please fact-check it before you spread it.

Emily - you are a good mom to teach your daughter to think critically when she sees TV or a video.  Kids (even adults) should not believe everything they are told, but to look to all news sources and develop a filter.  

But, there is an odd sequence here.  She self-declares - with media help, ahead of the election and convention, prospectively that she has the delegates. Second, she gets endorsements that she did not have.  Third, the press secretary at the WH holds a press conference saying the investigation is a "criminal one."  

Now, ABC is running a story that has been percolating.  https://gma.yahoo.com/clinton-donor-got-sensitive-intelligence-board-160945648--abc-news-topstories.html#

The emails are contained within the "gossip" - going back to 2012, which shows they have been sitting on this for 3 years. A guy (big donor) gets an appointment to a nuclear/intelligence related post with no experience? He threatens ABC's Brian Ross with arrest?  Gossip?  Bad news source? Now - he is a super delegate?  A "checkbook" super delegate!

This is not muckraking or gossip and should not be dismissed as such. It sometimes takes 3 days for a story to hit mainline media after it is industry-vetted.  That is a naive point of view about the media.  There have been quid pro quos with the Clinton Foundation back-channeling donations for influence.  This guy threatened the ABC reporter of longevity with "arrest!"  Gossip?  I think not.  ABC is the last place with George Stephanopoulos, also a big Clinton Foundation donor and sitting at a news desk posing as a neutral reporter/host. That is naive. He was Bill's press secretary.  I like and enjoy a lot of his presentation, because he is very likable on-screen, apart from these blatant conflicts-of-interest which taint his journalism.
      

[Emily]

As I suspected,  a little time would bring a reasonable explanation - search for "Al Capone cri" FdP. You will see that it will not autocomplete with "Al Capone crime" because "crime" is one of Google's list of disparaging words that it won't attach to a name in a search. So it's simply that Yahoo's and Bing's algorithms are a little more rude than Google's.

A video could just as easily have been made showing that if you go to Yahoo! or Bing and type in "Donald Trump frau" it will autofill "Donald Trump fraud," but Google doesn't. And the other two will give you "Donald Trump racist" for "Donald Trump rac" but Google doesn't.

I explain to my daughter frequently that she shouldn't believe everything she hears and that she should check sources before she believes or repeats a story. It would seem that most adults haven't learned that yet.

It's many times now that you've posted "news" items from gossip or muckraking sites that have been as many times shown to be wrong. If you insist on getting news from disreputable sources, please fact-check it before you spread it.

Emily - you are a good mom to teach your daughter to think critically when she sees TV or a video.  Kids (even adults) should not believe everything they are told, but to look to all news sources and develop a filter.  

But, there is an odd sequence here.  She self-declares - with media help, ahead of the election and convention, prospectively that she has the delegates. Second, she gets endorsements that she did not have.  Third, the press secretary at the WH holds a press conference saying the investigation is a "criminal one."  

Now, ABC is running a story that has been percolating.  https://gma.yahoo.com/clinton-donor-got-sensitive-intelligence-board-160945648--abc-news-topstories.html#

The emails are contained within the "gossip" - going back to 2012, which shows they have been sitting on this for 3 years. A guy (big donor) gets an appointment to a nuclear/intelligence related post with no experience? He threatens ABC's Brian Ross with arrest?  Gossip?  Bad news source? Now - he is a super delegate?  A "checkbook" super delegate!

This is not muckraking or gossip and should not be dismissed as such. It sometimes takes 3 days for a story to hit mainline media after it is industry-vetted.  That is a naive point of view about the media.  There have been quid pro quos with the Clinton Foundation back-channeling donations for influence.  This guy threatened the ABC reporter of longevity with "arrest!"  Gossip?  I think not.  ABC is the last place with George Stephanopoulos, also a big Clinton Foundation donor and sitting at a news desk posing as a neutral reporter/host. That is naive. He was Bill's press secretary.  I like and enjoy a lot of his presentation, because he is very likable on-screen, apart from these blatant conflicts-of-interest which taint his journalism.
      

FdP, You persistently spread muckraking gossip. In fact, you helpfully remind me not to get into the "where there's smoke there's fire" mind frame that so many get swayed into because I see how frequently these unvalidated muckraking talking points get repeated. That stupid, quickly disproved Google thing spread around like wildfire because people are SO EXCITED for another Hillary Clinton scandal. And people start thinking, "there are so many scandals, there must be something wrong." Well, there is something wrong: there's a cottage industry of people who spend all their time making up scandals about Hillary Clinton.
The one you posted yesterday was proven false, and you were eager to spread it. Yet you don't stop to think at all about what that means about your own integrity, because you're so focused on Clinton's perceived lack of integrity. You didn't even pause when you learned you'd been taken in; you just moved on to your next Clinton scandal talking point.

So, for your continued scandal-mongering -
-"She self-declares - with media help, ahead of the election and convention, prospectively that she has the delegates."
  -- all this is perfectly normal; AP called for Trump using the same methodology and he consequently "self-declared." The same methodology was used for Obama in 2008. It's normal for the press to try to find out who super delegates are supporting and then to report it. And it's normal - I can't think of a single occasion within my lifetime in which this didn't happen - for a candidate and the press to announce when a candidate has passed the halfway mark. This is completely standard. You must know it. Why are you trying to make a scandal of a normal practice with this one candidate?
-"Second, she gets endorsements that she did not have."
 -- again, this is entirely standard; there's always a wave of endorsements once a candidate's the clear nominee - look at Trump; Obama in '08; McCain in '08; Romney, Dole, W. Bush, etc. I can remember the same thing with Bill Clinton, who I worked against in the primaries in '92. Exact same pattern. Why are you trying to make a scandal of a normal practice with this one candidate?
- "Third, the press secretary at the WH holds a press conference saying the investigation is a "criminal one." "
 -- I believe we don't consider people to be convicted of a crime until they're convicted of a crime, unless we are trying to generate a scandal.

-Regarding the relationships among fundraisers, politicians and the media - they are inevitable. They all work together. They all have relationships. To say having a relationship is in-and-of-itself scandalous is absurd and is equivalent to saying that only hermits should be in government. This is like when you were trying to say that it's scandalous for the EPA to work with scientists. What you lack in all of these things is evidence of wrong-doing. People like to imply that Hillary Clinton MUST be doing something wrong because she has a lot of relationships with a lot of powerful people in various industries. Well, of course she does. And so does everyone else who runs for president, Trump and Sanders included. It's only a scandal if there's evidence of wrong-doing or unless you're trying to generate a scandal.

When you find actual evidence of wrong-doing: a conviction of a crime; a document that shows quid pro quo; not a youtube video or a Breitbart hit piece or an innuendo-filled diatribe, but actual evidence, let me know.

Because I think the scandal here might be that someone's reputation has been ruined among many of her fellow citizens because they are so ready to believe innuendo and malicious muckracking gossip.

As far as I know at this point, what Clinton actually, factually, has against her on a personal level (putting policy aside) is A) she lied once about a sniper, B) she really needs to publicly apologize to Monica Lewinsky and a few other women and C) the "super predator" comment. Those, and she's developed a deep wariness and mistrust of the media that causes her to behave in ways that adds force to the innuendos, not because they're correct, but because she's over-secretive, which causes more suspicion.

[filledeplage]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

Are you disputing that Brian Ross, a long time journalist, from ABC was threatened, on video, by this punk-donor with arrest when he queried him in 2012.  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story? 

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so. 

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public. 

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous. 

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.   

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.       

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.   
 

[Emily]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story?  

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so.  

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public.  

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous.  

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.    

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.      

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.  
 

-"They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo."
-- So every time a journalist interviews a politician, something scandalous is happening? Every time someone raises funds for a campaign, something scandalous is happening?
Do you really believe this?

-"Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google."
-- What are you even talking about? Yahoo is perhaps trying to distance themselves from google?? Why would they do that? Other than the fact that they are competitors? Or, even though it's been proven wrong, are you still sticking with that Google nonsense like you do so many other proven wrong crackpot theories?

-Obama also endorsed her two days after she sealed the nomination, after he met with Sanders - oooh coincidence? No. Normal timing.

-Yes, I read the email. And no, that guy (who you call a "punk" not clear why you're beginning to talk like Donald Trump) did not threaten them with arrest. Security threatened them with arrest.

-"No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?"
-- Once again, got evidence or just innuendo?

-You were proven wrong on the EPA thing. But as with the Google thing and the Benghazi thing and the Planned Parenthood thing, you believe what you want to believe without regard to facts.

-Hillary Clinton did not say she would put the US miners out of business. She was actually just being honest about an inevitability. But people like to hear someone with no working policy proposals tell them we're going to WIN rather than think about reality. Better to go with the person who thinks about reality so you can plan for the eventuality rather than the comfy liar who will leave you hanging when fate comes knocking.

-You like that Harvard saying. Here's another favorite Harvard thing: "evidence based" as in "evidence based medicine", "evidence based management", "evidence based policies", "evidence based theory" - all core ideas at Harvard.

Again, you've put out a whole lot of innuendo; no evidence. People should be ashamed of printing these sorts of stories.

No, sadly, you are not alone. But you should rise above this sort of thing.

[filledeplage]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story?  

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so.  

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public.  

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous.  

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.    

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.      

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.  
 

-"They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo."
-- So every time a journalist interviews a politician, something scandalous is happening? Every time someone raises funds for a campaign, something scandalous is happening?
Do you really believe this?

-"Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google."
-- What are you even talking about? Yahoo is perhaps trying to distance themselves from google?? Why would they do that? Other than the fact that they are competitors? Or, even though it's been proven wrong, are you still sticking with that Google nonsense like you do so many other proven wrong crackpot theories?

-Obama also endorsed her two days after she sealed the nomination, after he met with Sanders - oooh coincidence? No. Normal timing.

-Yes, I read the email. And no, that guy (who you call a "punk" not clear why you're beginning to talk like Donald Trump) did not threaten them with arrest. Security threatened them with arrest.

-"No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?"
-- Once again, got evidence or just innuendo?

-You were proven wrong on the EPA thing. But as with the Google thing and the Benghazi thing and the Planned Parenthood thing, you believe what you want to believe without regard to facts.

-Hillary Clinton did not say she would put the US miners out of business. She was actually just being honest about an inevitability. But people like to hear someone with no working policy proposals tell them we're going to WIN rather than think about reality. Better to go with the person who thinks about reality so you can plan for the eventuality rather than the comfy liar who will leave you hanging when fate comes knocking.

-You like that Harvard saying. Here's another favorite Harvard thing: "evidence based" as in "evidence based medicine", "evidence based management", "evidence based policies", "evidence based theory" - all core ideas at Harvard.

Again, you've put out a whole lot of innuendo; no evidence. People should be ashamed of printing these sorts of stories.

No, sadly, you are not alone. But you should rise above this sort of thing.

Emily - there is a fine ethical line between quid pro quo, in politics, out-and-out bribery and the like.  i believe the line has been crossed.  This report from Brian Ross was in the pipeline for 4 years.  This is ABC - the mouthpiece of the Democratic party.  Brian Ross should be ashamed?  

And as for "evidence-based" from Harvard, yes I am picking and choosing with that quote.

Not so long ago, some Harvard psychiatrists got caught manipulating "evidence" in cooperation with Big Pharma. And a conflict of interest with the NIH, the National Institute of Health. It related to the over prescription of antipsychotic drugs in children.

http://blogs/wsj.com/health/2008/06/09/harvard-psychiatrists-under-fire-for-drug-company-funding/

Hillary Clinton did say she was putting the miners out of business.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinto-well-put-miners-out-business/81750336/

Hillary apologized.  

So she must have said it.  Oh, she did.  

http://youtu.be/kslXqxpQNt0

[Emily]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story?  

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so.  

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public.  

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous.  

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.    

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.      

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.  
 

-"They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo."
-- So every time a journalist interviews a politician, something scandalous is happening? Every time someone raises funds for a campaign, something scandalous is happening?
Do you really believe this?

-"Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google."
-- What are you even talking about? Yahoo is perhaps trying to distance themselves from google?? Why would they do that? Other than the fact that they are competitors? Or, even though it's been proven wrong, are you still sticking with that Google nonsense like you do so many other proven wrong crackpot theories?

-Obama also endorsed her two days after she sealed the nomination, after he met with Sanders - oooh coincidence? No. Normal timing.

-Yes, I read the email. And no, that guy (who you call a "punk" not clear why you're beginning to talk like Donald Trump) did not threaten them with arrest. Security threatened them with arrest.

-"No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?"
-- Once again, got evidence or just innuendo?

-You were proven wrong on the EPA thing. But as with the Google thing and the Benghazi thing and the Planned Parenthood thing, you believe what you want to believe without regard to facts.

-Hillary Clinton did not say she would put the US miners out of business. She was actually just being honest about an inevitability. But people like to hear someone with no working policy proposals tell them we're going to WIN rather than think about reality. Better to go with the person who thinks about reality so you can plan for the eventuality rather than the comfy liar who will leave you hanging when fate comes knocking.

-You like that Harvard saying. Here's another favorite Harvard thing: "evidence based" as in "evidence based medicine", "evidence based management", "evidence based policies", "evidence based theory" - all core ideas at Harvard.

Again, you've put out a whole lot of innuendo; no evidence. People should be ashamed of printing these sorts of stories.

No, sadly, you are not alone. But you should rise above this sort of thing.

Emily - there is a fine ethical line between quid pro quo, in politics, out-and-out bribery and the like.  i believe the line has been crossed.  This report from Brian Ross was in the pipeline for 4 years.  This is ABC - the mouthpiece of the Democratic party.  Brian Ross should be ashamed?  

And as for "evidence-based" from Harvard, yes I am picking and choosing with that quote.

Not so long ago, some Harvard psychiatrists got caught manipulating "evidence" in cooperation with Big Pharma. And a conflict of interest with the NIH, the National Institute of Health. It related to the over prescription of antipsychotic drugs in children.

http://blogs/wsj.com/health/2008/06/09/harvard-psychiatrists-under-fire-for-drug-company-funding/

Hillary Clinton did say she was putting the miners out of business.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinto-well-put-miners-out-business/81750336/

Hillary apologized.  

So she must have said it.  Oh, she did.  

http://youtu.be/kslXqxpQNt0

Once again, please do your research:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/
There's reality, then there's being told pretty lies. It's like when everyone voted for Reagan because he said he'd cut taxes and revenue would go up. Living with economists, I believed no one would fall for that - how ridiculous - but they did and our debt started on the trajectory it's still on. But people prefer a pretty lie to reality. A government that's thinking about the reality of how to help miners transition is a lot better than a government that is pretending they won't have to then leaves them in the lurch when it happens, but they prefer to live in a fantasy, then get mad when what they voted for actually happens. Watch: lots of mining jobs will be lost, as she said, then they'll be pissed off. It's the Republican way: vote against your interests, then be angry when you get what you vote for.

Regarding the quid pro quo stuff: again, you believe what you like, though you have no evidence.

Regarding Biederman et al. It was reported in responsible journals and he was sanctioned. Guess why...
Because his actions were not standard; because they were investigated, and he was found, with evidence, to actually have done something wrong. So, as we've discussed before, an example of an institution having a bad egg is not evidence against the institution. If it were found o be a common practice at the institution that the institution knowingly tolerated, it would be a different story.

So, if you have evidence of someone doing something wrong, test it, and present it. If you don't, but you still are blaming the person for it, or spreading it around, your integrity is questionable.

And, if you have evidence of an individual doing something wrong, don't hold the individual's institutional ties responsible unless there's evidence that the problem is an institutional problem.

In other words, use critical thinking please.

[filledeplage]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story?  

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so.  

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public.  

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous.  

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.    

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.      

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.  
 

-"They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo."
-- So every time a journalist interviews a politician, something scandalous is happening? Every time someone raises funds for a campaign, something scandalous is happening?
Do you really believe this?

-"Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google."
-- What are you even talking about? Yahoo is perhaps trying to distance themselves from google?? Why would they do that? Other than the fact that they are competitors? Or, even though it's been proven wrong, are you still sticking with that Google nonsense like you do so many other proven wrong crackpot theories?

-Obama also endorsed her two days after she sealed the nomination, after he met with Sanders - oooh coincidence? No. Normal timing.

-Yes, I read the email. And no, that guy (who you call a "punk" not clear why you're beginning to talk like Donald Trump) did not threaten them with arrest. Security threatened them with arrest.

-"No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?"
-- Once again, got evidence or just innuendo?

-You were proven wrong on the EPA thing. But as with the Google thing and the Benghazi thing and the Planned Parenthood thing, you believe what you want to believe without regard to facts.

-Hillary Clinton did not say she would put the US miners out of business. She was actually just being honest about an inevitability. But people like to hear someone with no working policy proposals tell them we're going to WIN rather than think about reality. Better to go with the person who thinks about reality so you can plan for the eventuality rather than the comfy liar who will leave you hanging when fate comes knocking.

-You like that Harvard saying. Here's another favorite Harvard thing: "evidence based" as in "evidence based medicine", "evidence based management", "evidence based policies", "evidence based theory" - all core ideas at Harvard.

Again, you've put out a whole lot of innuendo; no evidence. People should be ashamed of printing these sorts of stories.

No, sadly, you are not alone. But you should rise above this sort of thing.

Emily - there is a fine ethical line between quid pro quo, in politics, out-and-out bribery and the like.  i believe the line has been crossed.  This report from Brian Ross was in the pipeline for 4 years.  This is ABC - the mouthpiece of the Democratic party.  Brian Ross should be ashamed?  

And as for "evidence-based" from Harvard, yes I am picking and choosing with that quote.

Not so long ago, some Harvard psychiatrists got caught manipulating "evidence" in cooperation with Big Pharma. And a conflict of interest with the NIH, the National Institute of Health. It related to the over prescription of antipsychotic drugs in children.

http://blogs/wsj.com/health/2008/06/09/harvard-psychiatrists-under-fire-for-drug-company-funding/

Hillary Clinton did say she was putting the miners out of business.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinto-well-put-miners-out-business/81750336/

Hillary apologized.  

So she must have said it.  Oh, she did.  

http://youtu.be/kslXqxpQNt0

Once again, please do your research:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/
There's reality, then there's being told pretty lies. It's like when everyone voted for Reagan because he said he'd cut taxes and revenue would go up. Living with economists, I believed no one would fall for that - how ridiculous - but they did and our debt started on the trajectory it's still on. But people prefer a pretty lie to reality. A government that's thinking about the reality of how to help miners transition is a lot better than a government that is pretending they won't have to then leaves them in the lurch when it happens, but they prefer to live in a fantasy, then get mad when what they voted for actually happens. Watch: lots of mining jobs will be lost, as she said, then they'll be pissed off. It's the Republican way: vote against your interests, then be angry when you get what you vote for.

Regarding the quid pro quo stuff: again, you believe what you like, though you have no evidence.

Regarding Biederman et al. It was reported in responsible journals and he was sanctioned. Guess why...
Because his actions were not standard; because they were investigated, and he was found, with evidence, to actually have done something wrong. So, as we've discussed before, an example of an institution having a bad egg is not evidence against the institution. If it were found o be a common practice at the institution that the institution knowingly tolerated, it would be a different story.

So, if you have evidence of someone doing something wrong, test it, and present it. If you don't, but you still are blaming the person for it, or spreading it around, your integrity is questionable.

And, if you have evidence of an individual doing something wrong, don't hold the individual's institutional ties responsible unless there's evidence that the problem is an institutional problem.

In other words, use critical thinking please.

Emily - had Mrs. Clinton not made those statements in line with the new US Energy (climate change)policies, and the miners not responded to them, she would not have convened a meeting with them to "walk it back." She apologized. It was not out of context. She has not learned that what she says is recorded and uploaded for those who don't agree and will have available for opposing viewpoint. This was her damage control after it hit the fan. That article that you linked is an admission.

The only "economics" that those miners knew, and know, was that they were going to be out of work, to the detriment of their families.

And...as it will end up in the political debate...The FBI had this terrorist on their radar for some time.  It did not take the "narrative" long to turn to gun control, where he was in the security business, while flagged multiple times by the FBI and somehow another one slips through the cracks. It is ideology based terrorism and now against the LGBT community, that the administration still will not articulate.  The shooter had a alia firearm permit.

p.s. on the miners - did she have a jobs program in place or a retraining program in place for these miners to earn a living wage?  No she did not.  Yes, it is unhealthy work but is is all they have and if those jobs are taken from those areas, there needs to be a structure in place to engage re-employment with a living wage.  That linked article was her damage control. 

Orlando terrorist info link below...

http://m.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/fort-pierce-apartment-building-evacuated-has-ties-/nrfFf/

[Emily]

Emily - seriously, Hillary has massive bombs going off all around her.  Brian Pagliano has been given immunity and now has been told to produce the agreement.  Frankly, I am disgusted that she squandered (for women) this opportunity, with greed.  Yes, she was screwed in 2008.  This is not politics as usual.  They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo.

  This is an ABC story on yahoo by the most Hillary-friendly (Demmie friendly) network. Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google.  Oh, it is not innuendo.  Duck Duck go-go!

Obama endorsed her contemporaneous to Josh Earnest's press conference about a "criminal' investigation. How does that happen and where does she get off declaring that an indictment is "never gonna happen"- who does she think she is?  Did you read the emails contained in the ABC story?  

No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?  I don't think so.  

The EPA manipulated those studies on global warming/climate change because they funded them with taxpayer money.  $45 million IIRC.  I believe it is junk science that is industry-driven.  And, I believe it is a false narrative being foisted on the public.  

Science is supposed to be independent of influence-peddling for results.  There was no real citizen input post-"study" and only Hillary's declaration that she would put the US miners out of business (while China was allowed to open about 200 mines.)  It is my opinion that it was intended to chill the opposition.  Yes, it is scandalous.  

We will see as this all unfolds. And, Bernie Sanders has not "abandoned his campaign" and dutifully turned over his workers to Hillary.  He is waiting for the FBI to finish it's work.  We don't agree.  And, that is fine.  Harvard has a famous saying, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I learned it decades ago from one of my principals.    

Do I think hiring Google execs and staff helped manipulate search engines? You bet I do and am not alone. Most elections are close. They only need to influence about 3-5% of the voters.  Can a search engine, the top search engine, really the default, and certainly has influence, influence an election outcome.  Others on a global level, looking at UK and India's elections have looked at the same issues.      

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives

No...Guess I am not alone.  
 

-"They all "work together?"  That is a clear condonation of quid pro quo."
-- So every time a journalist interviews a politician, something scandalous is happening? Every time someone raises funds for a campaign, something scandalous is happening?
Do you really believe this?

-"Now it is a headlining story on yahoo who are perhaps trying to distance themselves from google."
-- What are you even talking about? Yahoo is perhaps trying to distance themselves from google?? Why would they do that? Other than the fact that they are competitors? Or, even though it's been proven wrong, are you still sticking with that Google nonsense like you do so many other proven wrong crackpot theories?

-Obama also endorsed her two days after she sealed the nomination, after he met with Sanders - oooh coincidence? No. Normal timing.

-Yes, I read the email. And no, that guy (who you call a "punk" not clear why you're beginning to talk like Donald Trump) did not threaten them with arrest. Security threatened them with arrest.

-"No - "relationships" which guarantee "access" don't work. That is not how it is supposed to work as a quid-pro-quo. Sure, your (donors) phone calls always take some "preference," but, as far as contracts or flat-out preferential treatment for the utterly unqualified as this guy was?"
-- Once again, got evidence or just innuendo?

-You were proven wrong on the EPA thing. But as with the Google thing and the Benghazi thing and the Planned Parenthood thing, you believe what you want to believe without regard to facts.

-Hillary Clinton did not say she would put the US miners out of business. She was actually just being honest about an inevitability. But people like to hear someone with no working policy proposals tell them we're going to WIN rather than think about reality. Better to go with the person who thinks about reality so you can plan for the eventuality rather than the comfy liar who will leave you hanging when fate comes knocking.

-You like that Harvard saying. Here's another favorite Harvard thing: "evidence based" as in "evidence based medicine", "evidence based management", "evidence based policies", "evidence based theory" - all core ideas at Harvard.

Again, you've put out a whole lot of innuendo; no evidence. People should be ashamed of printing these sorts of stories.

No, sadly, you are not alone. But you should rise above this sort of thing.

Emily - there is a fine ethical line between quid pro quo, in politics, out-and-out bribery and the like.  i believe the line has been crossed.  This report from Brian Ross was in the pipeline for 4 years.  This is ABC - the mouthpiece of the Democratic party.  Brian Ross should be ashamed?  

And as for "evidence-based" from Harvard, yes I am picking and choosing with that quote.

Not so long ago, some Harvard psychiatrists got caught manipulating "evidence" in cooperation with Big Pharma. And a conflict of interest with the NIH, the National Institute of Health. It related to the over prescription of antipsychotic drugs in children.

http://blogs/wsj.com/health/2008/06/09/harvard-psychiatrists-under-fire-for-drug-company-funding/

Hillary Clinton did say she was putting the miners out of business.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinto-well-put-miners-out-business/81750336/

Hillary apologized.  

So she must have said it.  Oh, she did.  

http://youtu.be/kslXqxpQNt0

Once again, please do your research:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/
There's reality, then there's being told pretty lies. It's like when everyone voted for Reagan because he said he'd cut taxes and revenue would go up. Living with economists, I believed no one would fall for that - how ridiculous - but they did and our debt started on the trajectory it's still on. But people prefer a pretty lie to reality. A government that's thinking about the reality of how to help miners transition is a lot better than a government that is pretending they won't have to then leaves them in the lurch when it happens, but they prefer to live in a fantasy, then get mad when what they voted for actually happens. Watch: lots of mining jobs will be lost, as she said, then they'll be pissed off. It's the Republican way: vote against your interests, then be angry when you get what you vote for.

Regarding the quid pro quo stuff: again, you believe what you like, though you have no evidence.

Regarding Biederman et al. It was reported in responsible journals and he was sanctioned. Guess why...
Because his actions were not standard; because they were investigated, and he was found, with evidence, to actually have done something wrong. So, as we've discussed before, an example of an institution having a bad egg is not evidence against the institution. If it were found o be a common practice at the institution that the institution knowingly tolerated, it would be a different story.

So, if you have evidence of someone doing something wrong, test it, and present it. If you don't, but you still are blaming the person for it, or spreading it around, your integrity is questionable.

And, if you have evidence of an individual doing something wrong, don't hold the individual's institutional ties responsible unless there's evidence that the problem is an institutional problem.

In other words, use critical thinking please.

Emily - had Mrs. Clinton not made those statements in line with the new US Energy (climate change)policies, and the miners not responded to them, she would not have convened a meeting with them to "walk it back." She apologized. It was not out of context. She has not learned that what she says is recorded and uploaded for those who don't agree and will have available for opposing viewpoint. This was her damage control after it hit the fan. That article that you linked is an admission.

The only "economics" that those miners knew, and know, was that they were going to be out of work, to the detriment of their families.

And...as it will end up in the political debate...The FBI had this terrorist on their radar for some time.  It did not take the "narrative" long to turn to gun control, where he was in the security business, while flagged multiple times by the FBI and somehow another one slips through the cracks. It is ideology based terrorism and now against the LGBT community, that the administration still will not articulate.  The shooter had a alia firearm permit.

p.s. on the miners - did she have a jobs program in place or a retraining program in place for these miners to earn a living wage?  No she did not.  Yes, it is unhealthy work but is is all they have and if those jobs are taken from those areas, there needs to be a structure in place to engage re-employment with a living wage.  That linked article was her damage control.  

Orlando terrorist info link below...

http://m.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/fort-pierce-apartment-building-evacuated-has-ties-/nrfFf/

Utter BS. This was the full original quote:
"So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

Obviously her whole point was that it was important to keep miners employed when coal mining peters out. To pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous.

This is a fine example of how right-wing news media is fooling people into voting against their interest - by taking someone saying they will do the responsible thing and ensure there is employment available and twist it into that person will be cutting off their employment.

It's a flat-out lie. And it's too bad there are so many suckers out there who fall for that.


I have no idea what the pertinence of the Orlando shooting is.

[filledeplage]

Emily - that was after-the-fact. It was damage control.

People can no tolerate her lying and dialing-it-back. They are not going to drink her Koolaid.  
  
Hilary is talking about clean energy after she told those supporters and not directly those miners they would be out of work.  Because her remarks were carried by the media, she was called out by the miners and was forced to eat-her-words "with a fork and spoon."

is there retraining being offered those miners?  I didn't hear it, and you did not respond to that. Are they the new solar panel installers or geo-thermal workers?  She was arrogant and          got called out.  She is creating real jobs? I don't think so.  She didn't come up with a plan for them only a widespread announcement that the industry was going out of business.  

Only the "left" (the Dems) which used to be moderate and reasonable, now bordering on socialism, would have nothing else but to blame a "right wing" conspiracy, rather than to argue the merits. That has been her universal mantra for years.  When she has no response, the automatic answer is a "right wing conspiracy." The "Right Wing" is dead. And they know it.  At least Bernie has taken steps to save their pensions.  

https://berniesanders.come/press-release/sanders-presses-mcconnell-to-save-coal-miners-pensions/

The shooting, of course will impact this election. How could it not?  It is about national security and the right to associate? People are going to ultimately look to find the candidate who will keep them safe and not just offer scripted solutions.  

It might not be Hillary after her mis-management in Benghazi.  

 

[Emily]

Sorry, no, FdP, that was the ORiGINAL statement that was taken out of context. I can see by your response - that it was damage control - that even you don't think it's troubling, so stop trying to spin it like the right-wing media into something it's not. It's bogus scandal manufacturing. You may not drink her kool-aid but you sure are drinking the right-wing media's. Here's another source:
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

If you do your research you will see her proposals on her policy pages. But you don't do research. Once again, you are repeating incorrect gossip without researching, providing an illustration of how Clinton has wrongly gotten the reputation she has - because there are thousands of people who repeat ad nauseum, and knowingly, lies. And millions of others who lap it up without researching.

I am arguing the merits and the fact is that your and the right-wing media's claim is FALSE.

So the merit of your argument is 0. It is a lie.

Find a different original quote.

The shooter was born in the US and was a US citizen. Because of his record, proper firearms management laws would have limited his ability to buy the weapons he used. Name one other constitutional proposal by any other candidate that would have helped in that situation.

Once again, can you provide evidence for your coal claims or your quid pro quo claims?

[Emily]

Also why are you calling him a terrorist and not the shooter at Planned Parenthood?

[filledeplage]

Sorry, no, FdP, that was the ORiGINAL statement that was taken out of context. I can see by your response - that it was damage control - that even you don't think it's troubling, so stop trying to spin it like the right-wing media into something it's not. It's bogus scandal manufacturing. You may not drink her kool-aid but you sure are drinking the right-wing media's. Here's another source:
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

If you do your research you will see her proposals on her policy pages. But you don't do research. Once again, you are repeating incorrect gossip without researching, providing an illustration of how Clinton has wrongly gotten the reputation she has - because there are thousands of people who repeat ad nauseum, and knowingly, lies. And millions of others who lap it up without researching.

I am arguing the merits and the fact is that your and the right-wing media's claim is FALSE.

So the merit of your argument is 0. It is a lie.

Find a different original quote.

The shooter was born in the US and was a US citizen. Because of his record, proper firearms management laws would have limited his ability to buy the weapons he used. Name one other constitutional proposal by any other candidate that would have helped in that situation.

Once again, can you provide evidence for your coal claims or your quid pro quo claims?

Emily - that was the impression - a clear one at that, that the miners took from a speech she gave to another group.  There is no reason to take personally what anyone says about a political candidate.  The Clinton Foundation has many ties already investigated by the media. I did not invent it.  It came to my attention and not the other way around.

She made that statement and walked it back once she got political blow-back.

Now, we get "Oh, my message was  misconstrued." This is in a sense that the miners are stupid.  This is not about workplace health issues.  Bill Clinton would never have spoken in such an ill-advised manner and she could learn from his political polish.  Check out the time sequence.  

Yes the shooter was born here, and made  2 trips to SA in 2011 and 2012.  In working for G4S, he had the permits to carry and his story is unfolding.  There is all this "lone wolf, bipolar (with no doctor on record as such.)  

The FBI dropped the ball closing their investigations. And they had a "stand down" of 3 hours where no one was permitted in.  Why was that?  I think it resulted in more LGBT people being killed.

At the end of the day, regardless of ideologies, voters will go into the booth and select the person whom they feel will keep them and their families safer. And the older LGBT members may be in position of guidance to have them see beyond the rhetoric to the "life or death" situation that we are all in, as we are no longer free to go to a nightclub, a marathon, a workplace (San Bernadino) or a shopping mall which are soft targets for unarmed citizens.  The older LGBT members remember the fight for HIV-AIDS medication.  I believe they are going to sift through the rhetoric carefully.  

That guy was in a security job, working at a courthouse, a youth detention center and was a spouse abuser.  The NRA didn't drop the ball - the politically correct FBI did.  This is not about gun control which is where the spin is going and it is being called the "right wing's fault."  

Had the club managers been "carrying" inside the club, much carnage, analogous to the Bataclan massacre, might have been prevented. This is all the usual leftist Democratic agenda.  

And this has nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood shooting? - these other attacks are terrorism based.    

And, Emily - you aren't grading my work.  This is an open discussion.  You don't agree.  And I don't have a problem with that even if I don't share the viewpoint.  


    

[Emily]

Sorry, no, FdP, that was the ORiGINAL statement that was taken out of context. I can see by your response - that it was damage control - that even you don't think it's troubling, so stop trying to spin it like the right-wing media into something it's not. It's bogus scandal manufacturing. You may not drink her kool-aid but you sure are drinking the right-wing media's. Here's another source:
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

If you do your research you will see her proposals on her policy pages. But you don't do research. Once again, you are repeating incorrect gossip without researching, providing an illustration of how Clinton has wrongly gotten the reputation she has - because there are thousands of people who repeat ad nauseum, and knowingly, lies. And millions of others who lap it up without researching.

I am arguing the merits and the fact is that your and the right-wing media's claim is FALSE.

So the merit of your argument is 0. It is a lie.

Find a different original quote.

The shooter was born in the US and was a US citizen. Because of his record, proper firearms management laws would have limited his ability to buy the weapons he used. Name one other constitutional proposal by any other candidate that would have helped in that situation.

Once again, can you provide evidence for your coal claims or your quid pro quo claims?

Emily - that was the impression - a clear one at that, that the miners took from a speech she gave to another group.  There is no reason to take personally what anyone says about a political candidate.  The Clinton Foundation has many ties already investigated by the media. I did not invent it.  It came to my attention and not the other way around.

She made that statement and walked it back once she got political blow-back.

Now, we get "Oh, my message was  misconstrued." This is in a sense that the miners are stupid.  This is not about workplace health issues.  Bill Clinton would never have spoken in such an ill-advised manner and she could learn from his political polish.  Check out the time sequence.  

Yes the shooter was born here, and made  2 trips to SA in 2011 and 2012.  In working for G4S, he had the permits to carry and his story is unfolding.  There is all this "lone wolf, bipolar (with no doctor on record as such.)  

The FBI dropped the ball closing their investigations. And they had a "stand down" of 3 hours where no one was permitted in.  Why was that?  I think it resulted in more LGBT people being killed.

At the end of the day, regardless of ideologies, voters will go into the booth and select the person whom they feel will keep them and their families safer. And the older LGBT members may be in position of guidance to have them see beyond the rhetoric to the "life or death" situation that we are all in, as we are no longer free to go to a nightclub, a marathon, a workplace (San Bernadino) or a shopping mall which are soft targets for unarmed citizens.  The older LGBT members remember the fight for HIV-AIDS medication.  I believe they are going to sift through the rhetoric carefully.  

That guy was in a security job, working at a courthouse, a youth detention center and was a spouse abuser.  The NRA didn't drop the ball - the politically correct FBI did.  This is not about gun control which is where the spin is going and it is being called the "right wing's fault."  

Had the club managers been "carrying" inside the club, much carnage, analogous to the Bataclan massacre, might have been prevented. This is all the usual leftist Democratic agenda.  

And this has nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood shooting? - these other attacks are terrorism based.    

And, Emily - you aren't grading my work.  This is an open discussion.  You don't agree.  And I don't have a problem with that even if I don't share the viewpoint.  


    

That was the original statement. If it was presented as you persist in presenting it, even after knowing that the construction is incorrect, it was being misconstrued, obviously.
So now you are moving from 'she said she was going to fire coal miners' to 'she's not polished enough', a funny complaint from someone who excuses outright bigotry with 'he's a novice'.  So now not being as polished as Bill Clinton is a point against a politician? Hilarious.

Once again, you are talking about 'investigations by the media' without providing evidence of wrong-doing. More scandal-mongering. Do you have any ethics? This is equivalent to the Black List. The implication that if there's suspicion, there's guilt.

If anyone sifts through the rhetoric they will see that Clinton and Obama and lots of Democrats have proposals, and have introduced them, that would have hindered what happened in Orlando. Name one Republican or Trump proposal that would have and would have been constitutional.

You keep saying what 'people' think. Who are these 'people' you think you can speak for?

So when a Christian carries out a socio-political motivated murder, it's not terrorism but when a Muslim does, it is?
Nice bias you've got there.

[filledeplage]

Emily - her statement was We are going to to put the industry out of business."  (paraphrased) She walked it back and is on record as such. 

This is an apologists argument.  On this forum there is no need to apologize for what someone else does.  That is the job of her political press people. 

"People" - the American voter.  I am not speaking for anyone but myself, but these events are not going to be "managed" as has gone on for the last 8 years.  This happened because the politicized FBI, and the Justice Dept. are not dropping the net of those on watch lists.  This guy had a security job.  And you have not mentioned his daddio.  Now, that is hilarious.

And this was a double-or triple hit, and I am glad you brought it up.  This guy not only got LGBT, but also many Hispanics many of whom are Christian and reviled by these jihadis as "infidels." They also hate Jewish people.  They jihadis, caught alive, should be on trial in The Hague and that mistake goes back to Bush for not trying Sadaam in the ICJ.  That kind of self-styled international justice may be coming to an end. They got LGBT and the infidels.   

Who is an ally to the LGBT?  And, from the NY Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html?r=0

"Hill-arious?"  Bill, flawed as he might be, is twice the politician that she is. 
   

[Emily]

Emily - her statement was We are going to to put the industry out of business."  (paraphrased) She walked it back and is on record as such. 

This is an apologists argument.  On this forum there is no need to apologize for what someone else does.  That is the job of her political press people. 

"People" - the American voter.  I am not speaking for anyone but myself, but these events are not going to be "managed" as has gone on for the last 8 years.  This happened because the politicized FBI, and the Justice Dept. are not dropping the net of those on watch lists.  This guy had a security job.  And you have not mentioned his daddio.  Now, that is hilarious.

And this was a double-or triple hit, and I am glad you brought it up.  This guy not only got LGBT, but also many Hispanics many of whom are Christian and reviled by these jihadis as "infidels." They also hate Jewish people.  They jihadis, caught alive, should be on trial in The Hague and that mistake goes back to Bush for not trying Sadaam in the ICJ.  That kind of self-styled international justice may be coming to an end. They got LGBT and the infidels.   

Who is an ally to the LGBT?  And, from the NY Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html?r=0

"Hill-arious?"  Bill, flawed as he might be, is twice the politician that she is. 
   

You've read the original quote and the context above and you are still going to pretend that she somehow meant that she meant that she was going to render coal miners unemployed when clearly what she was saying was the exact opposite?
You are correct that Bill Clinton is a much better campaigner. Do you argue that that makes a better officer?
-- " They also hate Jewish people." -- who are 'they'?

[filledeplage]

Emily - her statement was We are going to to put the industry out of business."  (paraphrased) She walked it back and is on record as such. 

This is an apologists argument.  On this forum there is no need to apologize for what someone else does.  That is the job of her political press people. 

"People" - the American voter.  I am not speaking for anyone but myself, but these events are not going to be "managed" as has gone on for the last 8 years.  This happened because the politicized FBI, and the Justice Dept. are not dropping the net of those on watch lists.  This guy had a security job.  And you have not mentioned his daddio.  Now, that is hilarious.

And this was a double-or triple hit, and I am glad you brought it up.  This guy not only got LGBT, but also many Hispanics many of whom are Christian and reviled by these jihadis as "infidels." They also hate Jewish people.  They jihadis, caught alive, should be on trial in The Hague and that mistake goes back to Bush for not trying Sadaam in the ICJ.  That kind of self-styled international justice may be coming to an end. They got LGBT and the infidels.   

Who is an ally to the LGBT?  And, from the NY Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html?r=0

"Hill-arious?"  Bill, flawed as he might be, is twice the politician that she is. 
   

You've read the original quote and the context above and you are still going to pretend that she somehow meant that she meant that she was going to render coal miners unemployed when clearly what she was saying was the exact opposite?
You are correct that Bill Clinton is a much better campaigner. Do you argue that that makes a better officer?
-- " They also hate Jewish people." -- who are 'they'?

Emily - you are defending the indefensible.  The Islamic State to whom the shooter proclaimed allegience, is an enemy of the State of Israel and Christianity, known as The Crusaders. 

And, I don't pretend. Hillary went after the mining industry, and saying that she didn't is disingenuous in my view. 

When mines are closed, the miners are unemployed.  She did nothing to pre-emptively offer a remedy to the situation.  Hill-arious.

[the captain]

Which will break first, the forehead or the brick wall?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And, I don't pretend. Hillary went after the mining industry, and saying that she didn't is disingenuous in my view. 

When mines are closed, the miners are unemployed.  She did nothing to pre-emptively offer a remedy to the situation.  Hill-arious.

This is not really a debatable issue. This is a case of objective reality and verifiable evidence which you are currently arguing against.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

As for defending the indefensible, in what way is Emily doing this?

[filledeplage]

And, I don't pretend. Hillary went after the mining industry, and saying that she didn't is disingenuous in my view.  

When mines are closed, the miners are unemployed.  She did nothing to pre-emptively offer a remedy to the situation.  Hill-arious.

This is not really a debatable issue. This is a case of objective reality and verifiable evidence which you are currently arguing against.

CSM - what is a case of objective reality?  I see it as a difference of poltical positions.  This is not verifiable, only from sources that are of a poster's choosing.  There are no absolutes.  Each media outlet comes from a different philosophy.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And, I don't pretend. Hillary went after the mining industry, and saying that she didn't is disingenuous in my view.  

When mines are closed, the miners are unemployed.  She did nothing to pre-emptively offer a remedy to the situation.  Hill-arious.

This is not really a debatable issue. This is a case of objective reality and verifiable evidence which you are currently arguing against.

CSM - what is a case of objective reality?  I see it as a difference of poltical positions.  This is not verifiable, only from sources that are of a poster's choosing.  There are no absolutes.  Each media outlet comes from a different philosophy.  

The quotation from Clinton didn't came from her mouth - that is the objective reality. That objective reality has since been distorted and manipulated. This is not a case of "a difference of political positions" - this is a case of reality and distortion and you are choosing to agree with the distortion even when presented with reality. At that point, there is no point in having a discussion on the issue as far as I'm concerned.

[filledeplage]

And, I don't pretend. Hillary went after the mining industry, and saying that she didn't is disingenuous in my view.  

When mines are closed, the miners are unemployed.  She did nothing to pre-emptively offer a remedy to the situation.  Hill-arious.

This is not really a debatable issue. This is a case of objective reality and verifiable evidence which you are currently arguing against.

CSM - what is a case of objective reality?  I see it as a difference of poltical positions.  This is not verifiable, only from sources that are of a poster's choosing.  There are no absolutes.  Each media outlet comes from a different philosophy.  

The quotation from Clinton didn't came from her mouth - that is the objective reality. That objective reality has since been distorted and manipulated. This is not a case of "a difference of political positions" - this is a case of reality and distortion and you are choosing to agree with the distortion even when presented with reality. At that point, there is no point in having a discussion on the issue as far as I'm concerned.

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right. 

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia. 

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html   

[Emily]

FdP, I've often wondered if you are dishonest or confused. I must conclude from the above that you are dishonest.

You know perfectly well that the intent of her original statement was manipulated. If you 'received and processed' it the way you claim to have, then you were manipulated by your news sources. And you now know that for a fact, yet you still try find a way to twist the story to support your biases rather than adjust your outlook to fit the facts.