TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: It's Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out


Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
RE: It's Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out
Permalink  
 


Lol, that is your witty come back? 'Other people lied, not him!'?
What a joke.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Lol, that is your witty come back? 'Other people lied, not him!'?
What a joke.


 The POTUS and Secretary of State.  But, just skim right over that.  But, if you want to be specific about his supposed "lies" then why don't you say what they are instead of just trying to toss some schit?



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Oh, ok. Politifact. Uh huh. The same website which glosses over Obama and Hillary? Yeah sure. Another poltical hack website. But, OK, pick a "lie" of Trumps and let's dissect it.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

BTW, who are you supporting? Let's exam their LIES as well.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Bernie. Have you not been paying attention?
Last couple elections, there hasn't been a single candidate I really liked. It was always a matter of 'well, I like this guy a little better than that guy, and his views align a bit closer to my own, so I guess that is what I will do.'
Bernie is awesome though. He is independent, and
I think he has the right idea about practically everything.
I do not like Hilary, and I was never a keen Obama supporter, so I don't know why you keep harping on them.
And the site I posted has all of his statements listed out nicely.
You cry foul when people attack the source without reading the content, maybe you should look in the mirror next time you do.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Bernie. Have you not been paying attention?
Last couple elections, there hasn't been a single candidate I really liked. It was always a matter of 'well, I like this guy a little better than that guy, and his views align a bit closer to my own, so I guess that is what I will do.'
Bernie is awesome though. He is independent, and
I think he has the right idea about practically everything.
I do not like Hilary, and I was never a keen Obama supporter, so I don't know why you keep harping on them.
And the site I posted has all of his statements listed out nicely.
You cry foul when people attack the source without reading the content, maybe you should look in the mirror next time you do.


 LOL!  I am doing EXACTLY what liberals do!  They ask for sources then when you produce sources they say "oh it's Breitbart or Fox New" without ever reading the content.  So, yeah, i can play the same game.  But, i asked you, pick a SPECIFIC lie then let's dissect it.

As for not liking anyone, that's the easiest position to take.  Then you can pretend not to have to deal with anyone.   And, since Obama actually has the Executive power or the highest office and Hillary had powers as Sec of State, I would think that you would have railed a bit about their lies and ongoing lies so go figure.  But, you tossed down the gauntlet, so pick it up and be specific.



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 



Pants on Fire!
Says crime statistics show blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims.
— Donald Trump on Sunday, November 22nd, 2015 in a tweet
Trump's Pants on Fire tweet that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims

By Jon Greenberg on Monday, November 23rd, 2015 at 3:35 p.m.


The crowd surges to greet Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump after he speaks Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015 in Birmingham, Ala. A black activist was roughed up after he interrupted Trump at the rally. (AP)
A day after a black activist was kicked and punched by voters at a Donald Trump rally in Alabama, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics.

The image shows a masked, dark-skinned man with a handgun and a set of points, ostensibly about deaths in 2015:

"Blacks killed by whites -- 2%"

"Blacks killed by police -- 1%"

"Whites killed by police -- 3%"

"Whites killed by whites -- 16%"

"Whites killed by blacks -- 81%"

"Blacks killed by blacks -- 97%’

The image cites the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco"

Here is the image:

2015-11-23 11_56_07-Donald J. Trump on Twitter_ __@SeanSean252_ @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @C.png

None of the numbers are supported by official sources. The figures on black-on-white homicides and white-on-white homicides are wildly inaccurate. And, as several news organizations quickly noted, the "Crime Statistics Bureau" doesn’t exist. We looked for that agency as well and the closest we found in San Francisco were a number of crime scene clean-up services.

Interracial homicides

While the image references 2015, the year is not over, and no official numbers have been released. The latest data comes from the FBI for 2014. This table contrasts Trump’s figures with the official ones.


Trump Number
FBI Number
Error factor
Blacks killed by whites
2%
8%
4 times
Blacks killed by blacks
97%
90%
Just a little off
Whites killed by whites
16%
82%
5.4 times
Whites killed by blacks
81%
15%
5.4 times
The most glaring inaccuracies have to do with white homicide victims. Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true. By overwhelming percentages, whites tend to kill other whites. Similarly, blacks tend to kill other blacks. These trends have been observed for decades.

Killings by police

We also looked at what percentage of each race the police have killed. The official tally of deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers is well known to be incomplete. A study this year by the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that official counts miss between 30 to 40 percent of all police-related deaths.

The Washington Post has worked to fill the gap by compiling a database of police shootings for 2015. The most recent figures from the Post show 414 whites killed, compared to 223 blacks, as of Nov. 23, 2015.

Trump’s tweet said police were responsible for 3 percent of all white homicides and 1 percent of all black homicides. If that were true, then applying those percentages to the FBI report of all homicides in 2014, 91 whites would have died at the hands of police and 25 blacks. That’s a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.

In contrast, the Washington Post data show slightly less than two white deaths for each black death.

One of the official, and incomplete, sources for people killed at the hands of police is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violent death database. It shows a ratio of about 1.5 white deaths for each black death, in the period 2009 to 2013.

Trump’s number is about double the most accurate figures we could find. That makes him about 100 percent off.

Parenthetically, the website Little Green Footballs traced the original image back to a Twitter stream that appears to originate in the United Kingdom and features a modified swatiska with the line "Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little moustache."

Our ruling

Trump tweeted an image that made various statistical claims, including that blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims. Almost every number in the image is wrong. The statistics on white victims are exaggerated five-fold. The police-related deaths are off as well.

We rate this claim Pants on Fire


© 2015 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
About PolitiFact | Contact Us | Advertise
Privacy Policy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


__________________


Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 



Pants on Fire!
The federal government is sending refugees to states with governors who are "Republicans, not to the Democrats."
— Donald Trump on Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 in an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show
Donald Trump says Obama administration is pushing refugees toward states with GOP governors

By Louis Jacobson on Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 4:36 p.m.


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop in Knoxville, Tenn., on Nov. 16, 2015. (AP/Wade Payne)

Eleven-year-old Omran Wawieh, a refugee from Syria, is staying with parents and siblings at a motel in Pomona, Calif., on Nov. 17, 2015. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times/TNS)
As growing numbers of governors were expressing opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their state, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised the ante in an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.

Trump charged that the Obama administration is deliberately trying to resettle Syrian refugees in states with Republican governors while sparing states that have Democratic governors.

"They send them to the Republicans, not to the Democrats, you know, because they know the problems," Trump said on Nov. 17, 2015. "In California, you have a Democrat as a governor (Jerry Brown). In Florida, you have Rick Scott (a Republican). So you know they send them to the Republicans because you know why would we want to bother the Democrats? It's just insane. Taking these people is absolutely insanity."

Is the administration sending refugees to Republican-led states but not Democratic ones? In a word, no.

Syrian refugee resettlement by state

Before we delve into the numbers, it’s important to note that the Republicans currently have a commanding lead in governorships -- 31 states held by the Republicans compared to just 18 held by the Democrats. (The governor of Alaska is an independent.)

Given this imbalance, it would not be surprising to find Republican-led states ending up with more refugees overall than Democratic-led states. So we will look at not just the raw totals per state but also the average number of resettlements per state for each party.

According to numbers compiled by the Associated Press, states with Republican governors have accepted 1,219 Syrian refugees since Jan. 1, 2015, compared to 605 for states with Democratic governors. That works out to an average of 39 refugees per Republican-led state and 34 refugees per Democratic-led state. Note that the Democratic-led states have not been spared refugees, as Trump claimed.

On a per-state basis, Republican-led states have accepted more Syrian refugees so far in 2015, but not dramatically more. Indeed, only one state accepted more than 200 refugee resettlements -- California, which is led by Brown, a Democrat.

We also looked at State Department data for the most recent month, October 2015.

According to these numbers, Republican-led states accepted 117 Syrian refugees, while Democratic-led states accepted 70. That works out to 3.8 refugees per state for Republicans and slightly more -- 3.9 refugees per state -- with Democratic governors.

So Trump is wrong that Democratic-led states are avoiding resettlement of Syrian refugees. During the most recent period, they are actually accepting more per capita than Republican states are.

Who decides where refugees go?

Even if Trump had been right on the numbers, experts in refugee resettlement said partisan politics plays no role in determining where refugees end up.

Put simply, "the decision on refugee placement is based first on where the refugee might have family ties or other connections, and then largely on the capacity of voluntary agencies to provide case-management services," said Bill Frelick, director of the Human Rights Watch Refugee Rights Program.

Mark Hetfield, the president and CEO of HIAS (originally known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), said that at the beginning of each fiscal year, the State Department works with nine national voluntary agencies -- six faith-based, three nonsectarian -- to allocate the number of refugees per agency.

The nine groups are the Church World Service, the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Episcopal Migration Ministries, HIAS, the International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, and World Relief.

"The capacity at the local level is determined in consultation with local municipalities and state refugee coordinators, who are state officials, along with other community stakeholders," Hetfield said. "The states do not have veto power, but they are very much consulted in the process."

Every Wednesday, Hetfield said, the nine agencies meet to decide which agency will take which newly approved refugees. Files on each refugee household approved for resettlement by the Department of Homeland Security are reviewed with an eye to the size of the household, the gender and age distribution, the educational and employment backgrounds of adult members, whether family members or friends are already living in the United States and are willing to help, and whether there are special considerations, such as a serious health problem.

If an agency has a pre-existing relationship to the household -- such as having resettled other family members in the United States -- the case will typically be assigned to that agency, said Susan Martin, a professor of international migration at Georgetown University. Otherwise, the agency will attempt to allocate new refugee households according to numbers of people the agency feels capable of handling, she said. For instance, an agency will consider whether a local affiliate has adequate language resources available for the newly arrived refugees.

In other words, the agency -- not the administration -- allocates the refugees to a particular city. "The administration does not try to influence the process," Hetfield said.

Some states tend to get higher rates of refugee resettlement because family links are taken into account, Hetfield said. "That is why Michigan has so many refugees resettled there -- it is where Iraqis and Syrians have expressed a preference, due to family or other community links," he said. According to the AP data, Michigan has accepted 195 Syrian refugees this year.

So this, and not the fact that Michigan has a Republican governor, is why the state ranks relatively high in refugee resettlement, he said.

Our ruling

Trump said the federal government is sending refugees to states with governors who are "Republicans, not to the Democrats."

The numbers show that Democratic-led states recently received almost as many refugees as -- and by some calculations, even more refugees than -- Republican-led states on a per capita basis.

Beyond that, though, Trump is wrong to say that refugees are resettled as a form of partisan political vendetta. People who have taken part in the process say that the administration leaves it up to private groups, mostly faith-based groups, to determine where refugees should go, with the decision based on family links, the availability of language resources locally and the ability of local groups to handle the new workload -- not politics. We rate his statement Pants on Fire.


ADVERTISEMENT

About this statement:

Published: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 4:36 p.m.

Researched by: Louis Jacobson

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Immigration

Sources:

CBS News, "Donald Trump on Syrian refugees: 'They send them to the Republicans,' " Nov. 17, 2015

Politico, "Trump: Obama sending refugees to Republican states," Nov. 17, 2015

Associated Press, "Wary governors halt, question plan to accept Syrian refugees," Nov. 16, 2015

Refugee Processing Center, "Arrivals by State and Nationality as of October 31, 2015," accessed Nov. 18, 2015

Email interview with Bill Frelick, director of the Human Rights Watch Refugee Rights Program, Nov. 18, 2015

Email interview with Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, Nov. 18, 2015

Email interview with Susan Martin, professor of international migration at Georgetown University, Nov. 18, 2015

How to contact us

Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to truthometer@politifact.com or find us on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)

We're especially interested in any viral images or social media memes that you would like us to check out.

Sign up for PolitiFact’s email newsletter

Find out which politicians and pundits are telling the truth, which ones are stretching it, and which ones are making statements we rate Pants on Fire.


Email Address
SUBSCRIBE
(Privacy Policy)

What do you think?
Browse The Truth-O-MeterTM

Barack Obama's file
Pants-On-Fire rulings
By our rulings
By subject
By person
View recent articles
ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe

Keep up to date with PolitiFact
Sign up for our e-mail (about once a week)
Put a free PolitiFact widget on your blog or Web page
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Truth-O-Meter items
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on GOP Pledge-O-Meter items
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Obameter items
Follow us on Twitter
Fan us on Facebook
Advertise on PolitiFact

Politifact
© 2015 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
About PolitiFact | Contact Us | Advertise
Privacy Policy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


__________________


Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 



Pants on Fire!
The Trans-Pacific Partnership "was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone."
— Donald Trump on Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 in the fourth GOP primary debate.
Trump says China gets an advantage from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

By Clayton Youngman on Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 2:39 p.m.


Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. (Getty Images)
Donald Trump likes to talk about how China takes advantage of the United States economy, so it wasn’t surprising to see him bring up the People’s Republic at the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee.

When asked a question about the recently released Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, Trump took to bashing China.

"The TPP is horrible deal," Trump said. "It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone."

"If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the United States -- China in particular, because they're so good. It's the No. 1 abuser of this country," Trump said. "And if you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation. It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement."

There’s just one problem with Trump’s rant on China, as Sen. Rand Paul emphatically pointed out at the debate: China isn’t actually a part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To give Trump the benefit of the doubt, we asked some experts if there is any way China could benefit "through the back door" from the TPP. The short answer: no.

An overview of the TPP

While you could read the entire trade deal in full, as Trump correctly points out, it’s more than 6,000 pages long. Here’s a quick summary, and you can check out a more detailed guide on Vox:

The TPP involves 12 countries: the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei Darussalam.

The deal is meant to reduce trade barriers between these countries by lowering tariffs on goods, coordinating regulations and more.

The deal could also "provide stronger legal protections to drug companies, lengthen the term of copyright protection, give foreign investors a new way to challenge countries' laws and regulations, and much more," according to Vox.

In June, Congress authorized "fast-track" authority for President Obama, meaning Congress will promptly approve or disapprove the agreement Obama has negotiated -- there will be no amendments or filibusters. A vote is expected in 2016.

The deal was negotiated in secret before being released to the public.

Again, we should make it clear: China was in no way involved in TPP negotiations.

Can China somehow benefit?

We asked experts if there was any way China could possibly take advantage of the TPP. The experts all agreed: The trade deal will most likely negatively impact China.

Joel P. Trachtman, an international law professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, said the deal "would mean there would be zero tariffs on goods coming to the United States from places that compete with China."

"It certainly wouldn’t be expected to help China," he said.

The only way China might benefit, Trachtman said, is if it has investments in any of the countries involved in the deal. For example, if China has invested in plants in Vietnam, they might become more valuable to China; however, the benefits of those investments would be "small and rather insignificant."

Daniel Pearson, a senior fellow in trade policy studies at the Cato Institute, said Trump’s assertion that China continuously manipulates its currency is completely off-base.

"Some people are all wrapped up in this issue of currency manipulation. I don’t think that’s applicable to the Chinese," Pearson said. "It was never clear to me that China artificially lowered the value of its currency to gain an export advantage (in the past)."

We should also note that the TPP actually does mention currency manipulation. A side agreement in the trade deal -- separate from the 6,000 page main text -- says the 12 countries involved agree not to artificially deflate the value of their currencies. However, there is no enforceability provision -- meaning the clause is more of an honor code than a strict regulation.

"There aren't many economists who would be comfortable with an enforceable currency manipulation clause," says Emily J. Blanchard, an associate professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. "A binding currency provision would tie policy makers' hands at precisely the wrong time: when a central bank-- like the U.S. Federal Reserve-- needs to respond to a downturn in the local economy."

The only way China could benefit from the TPP, Pearson said, is if it experiences the "spillover benefits" of increased trading between the 12 countries involved in the TPP.

"There is some possibility that there will be trade diversion away from China and more trade between other TPP member countries," Pearson said. "That’s a potential negative. However, that may be entirely offset by the greater level of economic activity that we should expect to see in the TPP member countries."

Blanchard said she finds it "highly implausible" that China would benefit from the TPP. If it does, as Pearson suggests, so would the rest of the countries involved in the agreement.

"TPP is going to encourage greater trade integration among its signatories in Southeast Asia and beyond," she said. "That will inevitably suck some of the oxygen out of China’s local economy, as supply chains reorient toward other TPP countries, including the U.S."

To Trump’s assertion that the trade deal was designed for China’s benefit, experts say it’s actually the opposite. While Blanchard said experts are reluctant to suggest the agreement is a way of taking a shot at China, the TPP does allow the United States to shape trade practices in the Pacific before China can.

"If TPP passes, its enforceable labor and environmental provisions, curbs on state-owned enterprises, strong (intellectual property) laws, and transparency requirements will redefine the rules of the road in global trade agreements," she said. "This is definitely not the same rulebook that China would have written."

All three experts agreed that China could try and join the TPP in the future, but it first has to meet the requirements laid out in the agreement -- something we shouldn’t expect to happen any time soon.

China joining the TPP "would require further evolution of the Chinese economy to be more open and transparent," Pearson said. "It would definitely be good for the Chinese once they are able to join, but frankly, that would also be good for the United States."

In the days after the debate, Trump was asked if he knew that China was not part of the trade deal. Trump said he did and repeated his claim that China could benefit. But he still didn’t explain how that would actually work.

"Well, I know that China is not in the deal," Trump said. "And if they look at speeches they will see I talk about it all the time, this deal is going to be a great deal for China. It is going to be unbelievable because China is going to come in through the backdoor, and that is what I said. They are going to come in later through the backdoor and they will take advantage of what all of these other people were negotiating, and the Wall Street Journal does a big editorial that I didn't know about China."

Our ruling

Trump said the Trans Pacific Partnership "was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone."

Not only is China not a part of the TPP, but the experts we talked to all agreed: The TPP isn’t exciting news for China. There’s a chance that China could join the TPP down the line, but not without robust changes to its economy. Until then, China doesn’t stand to gain much from having trade diverted to other countries.

Trump can’t blame everything on China. We rate this statement Pants on Fire!


ADVERTISEMENT

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 2:39 p.m.

Researched by: Clayton Youngman

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: China, Trade

Sources:

Los Angeles Times, "Rand Paul drops the mic on Donald Trump over China's participation in trade deal," Nov. 10, 2015

Vox, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership, explained"

PolitiFact, "Martin O'Malley says Congress won't see Pacific trade deal before they vote on it," April 23, 2015

Anhui News (English), "TPP not a real challenge for China’s economy," Oct. 11, 2015

The Hill, "Currency manipulation plan gets key endorsement," Nov. 10, 2015

Office of the United States Trade Representative, "TPP Full Text"

Slate, "Is It Possible Donald Trump Was Right About China and the TPP?" Nov. 12, 2015

Phone interview with Daniel Pearson, senior fellow in trade policy studies at the Cato Institute, Nov. 11, 2015

Phone interview with Emily J. Blanchard, associate professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, Nov. 11, 2015

Phone interview with Joel P. Trachtman, professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Nov. 11, 2015

How to contact us

Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to truthometer@politifact.com or find us on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)

We're especially interested in any viral images or social media memes that you would like us to check out.

Sign up for PolitiFact’s email newsletter

Find out which politicians and pundits are telling the truth, which ones are stretching it, and which ones are making statements we rate Pants on Fire.


Email Address
SUBSCRIBE
(Privacy Policy)

What do you think?
Browse The Truth-O-MeterTM

Barack Obama's file
Pants-On-Fire rulings
By our rulings
By subject
By person
View recent articles
ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe

Keep up to date with PolitiFact
Sign up for our e-mail (about once a week)
Put a free PolitiFact widget on your blog or Web page
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Truth-O-Meter items
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on GOP Pledge-O-Meter items
Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Obameter items
Follow us on Twitter
Fan us on Facebook
Advertise on PolitiFact

Politifact
© 2015 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
About PolitiFact | Contact Us | Advertise
Privacy Policy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


__________________


Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 



Pants on Fire!
President Barack Obama "wants to take in 250,000 (people) from Syria."
— Donald Trump on Saturday, November 14th, 2015 in a rally in Beaumont, Texas
Donald Trump says President Obama wants the U.S. to take in 250,000 people from Syria

By Fauzeya Rahman on Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 4:26 p.m.


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop on Nov. 16 in Knoxville, Tenn. (AP Photo)
Donald Trump, the hard-charging businessman who had been leading voter polls for the Republican presidential nomination, recently kicked off a rally in Beaumont with a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris terrorist attacks that left at least 129 dead.

In the aftermath of the attacks, conflicting reports on the citizenship status of the perpetrators led 30 state governors and most of the Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, to speak out against Syrian refugees entering the United States. Trump began his Nov. 14, 2015, speech at Beaumont’s Ford Park Arena by calling the events in Paris the night before "terrible."

He went on to say, "And when you look at what happened in that case, it’s just reported, one from Syria. And our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria," citing one of the Paris attacker’s alleged Syrian nationality.

While the Syrian passport allegedly found next to the body of one of the attackers is believed to be fake and at least six out of the 10 known assailants are European nationals, Trump and others cited the Paris attacks as good reason to prohibit additional Syrian refugees from entering the United States.

Trump was not alone in claiming President Barack Obama wants to allow hundreds of thousands of Syrians entry to the United States. Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina put the number at 100,000 Syrian refugees and Ben Carson likened bringing 200,000 people "from that region" to malpractice. Trump had used the 250,000 figure before, telling Matt Lauer of NBC News he didn’t want that many Syrians coming to the United States.

The United States has a long history of taking in refugees from war-torn countries, including some from Syria. But has President Obama decided to admit 250,000 Syrian refugees?

Our attempts to learn the basis for Trump’s statement yielded no replies from his campaign.

In October 2015, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity made a claim much like the one Trump offered in Beaumont, though Hannity mentioned another country as well, saying: "The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country."

Pants on Fire, PolitiFact ruled a week later, finding that Hannity lofted a figure not rooted in Obama administration plans, though there are plans to admit more refugees, including more Syrians, over several years.

Hannity offered as backup for his claim a Sept. 20, 2015, Associated Press news story stating that the U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, per Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks. Hannity added up the total number of refugees allowed each year from all over the world, to get a total of 255,000 refugees.

That AP story, however, said that those figures reflected refugees to be welcomed from around the world, not just Syria or even the Middle East. On Sept. 10, 2015, the Obama administration announced plans to increase the number of Syrian refugees to at least 10,000, although talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh have claimed figures almost 10 times as high. We reached out to the White House for clarity.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz sent back an email stating that the U.S. is increasing the "number of Syrian and other refugees we admit from around the world on an annual basis," going up to 85,000 next year and 100,000 the following year.

While Hannity further clarified his statement, that he didn’t say all would be Syrian refugees, Trump explicitly labeled all 250,000 as Syrian refugees.

After searching other news stories, checking with the White House and searching some more, we did find that 250,000 figure out there on the Internet -- on a parody site called Real News Right Now, which stated: "The U.S. Department of State announced today that it will grant upwards of two-hundred and fifty thousand Syrian refugees temporary amnesty in the United States. Over the next four months, State Department officials working in conjunction with FEMA will begin processing and transporting the refugees to sparsely populated parts of Arizona and North Dakota." It went on to quote Cathy Pieper, a spokesperson for the "Department of State," the article said. We called the State Department to see if there was a spokesperson by that name; there isn’t.

Refugee resettlement

In September 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry shared the Obama administration’s plans to increase the total number of refugees coming into the United States from all countries from 70,000 to 85,000 in Fiscal Year 2016, with "10,000 over the next year from Syria specifically," Kerry said. The following year, Kerry said the target would be closer to 100,000 total, again from all countries.

Between Oct. 1, 2011 and Nov. 20, 2015, the U.S. resettled 2,261 Syrian refugees in 36 states, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that analyzes migration across the world. Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesperson for the organization, wrote in an email that between the Obama administration’s announcement of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees in Fiscal Year 2016 (part of the total increase to 85,000 refugees) and the plan to raise the overall refugee admissions ceiling in FY 2017 to 100,000, even if the entirety of the increase between Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017 were all Syrian refugees (the allotted number for Syrian refugees hasn’t been specified), that would permit admission of 25,000 Syrian refugees in FY 2017.

"We know of no proposal by the administration to admit 250,000 Syrian refugees," she said.

According to a report submitted to Congress Oct. 1, 2015, the U.S. admitted between 1,600 and 1,800 Syrian refugees in FY 2015. The table below, from the Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016 report to Congress includes the number of actual arrivals for 2014 and 2015 from all areas of the world, and projected numbers for 2016:



Table I

Refugee Admissions in FY 2014 and FY 2015

Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2016[3]

Region

FY 2014 Actual arrivals
FY 2015 Ceiling

Revised FY 2015 Ceiling

FY 2015 projected arrivals

Proposed FY2016 Ceiling
Africa
17,476
17,000
20,400
22,600
25,000
East Asia
14,784
13,000
17,300
18,200
13,000
Europe and Central Asia
959
1,000
2,300
2,350
4,000
Latin America/Caribbean
4,318
4,000
2,300
2,050
3,000
Near East/South Asia
32,450
33,000
27,700
24,800
34,000
Regional Subtotal
69,987
68,000
70,000
70,000
79,000
Unallocated Reserve

2,000


6,000
Total
69,987
70,000
70,000
70,000
85,000

Our ruling

Trump said President Obama wants to take in 250,000 people from Syria.

If so, neither the administration or any other authoritative source had said as much before Trump stumped in Beaumont. If current plans hold, Syrian refugees settling here will increase through 2017, but it will be nothing close to the 250,000 figure touted by Trump. The administration has plans to increase refugees admitted from all countries from 70,000 in 2015 to 100,000 in 2017.

Nothing close? We rate his claim Pants on Fire!

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.



ADVERTISEMENT

About this statement:

Published: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 4:26 p.m.

Researched by: Fauzeya Rahman

Edited by: Matt Schwartz

Subjects: Immigration, Terrorism

Sources:

Fact Sheet, Migration Policy Institute, Nov. 24, 2015

Email interview, Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications, Migration Policy Institute, Nov. 24, 2015

Email interview, Eric Schultz, principal deputy White House press secretary, Nov. 24, 2015

Video, Trump campaign speech, Nov. 14, 2015

NBC News, Today, Oct. 26, 2015

PolitiFact, Fact-checking Sean Hannity's claim on the U.S. accepting 250,000 refugees, Oct. 26, 2015

Sean Hannity Show, Attempt By Liberal Hack To Smear Sean Hannity Backfires Spectacularly, Oct. 27, 2015

U.S. Department of State, "Refugee Admissions Statistics," accessed Nov. 19, 2015

U.S. Department of State, "Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet"

U.S. State Department, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016, Oct. 1, 2015

Mediate, "Sean Hannity Falls for Parody Site Claiming U.S. Accepting 250,000 Syrian Refugees," Oct. 27, 2015

Real News Right Now, "U.S. to House 250,000 Syrian Refugees at Navajo, Standing Rock Indian Reservations," Sept. 6, 2015

Washington Post, "What we know about the Paris attacks and the hunt for the attackers," Nov. 18, 2015

Washington Post, "Were Syrian refugees involved in the Paris attacks? What we know and don’t know," Nov. 17, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry remarks, transcript, Sept. 20, 2015

Media Matters, "Fox News' Sean Hannity Feeds Donald Trump Fake Middle Eastern Refugee Claim From Hoax Website," Oct. 27, 2015

FiveThirtyEight, "Governors Who Want To Ban Syrian Refugees Have Something In Common," Nov. 16, 2015

Associated Press, "Kerry: US to accept 85,000 refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017," Sept. 20, 2015

ABC News, "Syrian Muslims 'Not Facing Genocide the Way Christians Are,' Ted Cruz Says," Nov. 17, 2015

CBS News, "GOP candidates rip Syrian refugee policy after Paris attacks," Nov. 14, 2015

Rolling Stone, "Ben Carson: Ban Middle Eastern Refugees After Paris Attacks," Nov. 13, 2015


How to contact us

We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Texas Truth-O-Meter with feedback and with claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.

Browse The Texas Truth-O-Meter

See all Pants on Fire rulings
See all False rulings
See Rick Perry's file
See John Cornyn's file
See Lloyd Doggett's file
See all Truth-O-Meter rulings from the state capitol
ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe

Keep up to date with PolitiFact Texas
Via a widget for your site
Via RSS
Follow us on Twitter
Fan us on Facebook
In the Austin American-Statesman

Politifact
© 2015 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
About PolitiFact | Contact Us | Advertise
Privacy Policy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


__________________


Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

There.

__________________


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
msrock wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

I have my doubts about Trump. My DH is a news addict and I've seen so many interviews with Trump. I've heard him say more than once that he'll say whatever people want to hear. I don't want another person that will just say words to get votes.


He's saying what everyone wants to say but they are afraid to.  He says things that we talk about in the privacy of our own homes.   He's probably the most honest of the bunch.  They can't say what they really want to, but he is. He's not bought and paid for by the establishment... very refreshing for those of us who are tired of talking heads and political correctness.


 Ha! He has been PROVEN as a liar, and the most dishonest of the bunch. Look it up. 


 Most dishonest of what bunch?  Now, I'm not defending Trump, and he is not my preference for a candidate, but he is not a bigger liar than Hillary.  She actually lies under oath, and she lies about things that matter.  I don't know if Trump is lying so much as just saying whatever he wants without fact-checking (like so many do right here on this board).



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Oh, ok. He tweeted a meme. But, ignore your POTUS and Sec of State carrying on a bold faced LIE for weeks wherein Americans died. Sure.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

And as for Obama and Hilary. . .
Yes, they have disappointed the country and me personally many times. BUT.
I am not a political scholar. I am a farmer. Do they deserve to be charged with crimes and removed from office? I don't know. But, I do not believe there is a massive conspiracy protecting them.
If they have broken laws and comitted treason, let them be charged and removed form their posts.
But this has not happened. So, I trust that my elected officials are doing their job and hope they have the situation in hand.
I vote, I read the news, I try to pay attention, but in the end, I am not going to arrest anyone personally because I do not have that authority, and neither do a single one of you.

So let the people who DO have that authority do their job.

__________________


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

And as for Obama and Hilary. . .
Yes, they have disappointed the country and me personally many times. BUT.
I am not a political scholar. I am a farmer. Do they deserve to be charged with crimes and removed from office? I don't know. But, I do not believe there is a massive conspiracy protecting them.
If they have broken laws and comitted treason, let them be charged and removed form their posts.
But this has not happened. So, I trust that my elected officials are doing their job and hope they have the situation in hand.
I vote, I read the news, I try to pay attention, but in the end, I am not going to arrest anyone personally because I do not have that authority, and neither do a single one of you.

So let the people who DO have that authority do their job.


 That's the problem.  They are not doing it.  So, it's OUR job to get them out of office.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yes. By voting.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

And as for Obama and Hilary. . .
Yes, they have disappointed the country and me personally many times. BUT.
I am not a political scholar. I am a farmer. Do they deserve to be charged with crimes and removed from office? I don't know. But, I do not believe there is a massive conspiracy protecting them.
If they have broken laws and comitted treason, let them be charged and removed form their posts.
But this has not happened. So, I trust that my elected officials are doing their job and hope they have the situation in hand.
I vote, I read the news, I try to pay attention, but in the end, I am not going to arrest anyone personally because I do not have that authority, and neither do a single one of you.

So let the people who DO have that authority do their job.


 

25 Violations of Law By President Obama and His Administration

 
  1. Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens.

  2. In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.

  3. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .


    • More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
    • Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.
  4. Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" be built along America's 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration.

  5. Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Especially egregious is President Obama's Executive Orders amending the ObamaCarelaw to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun. This outrageous Executive Order could allow the federal government to track and monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.

  6. Obama's assault on Christians and religious freedom.

    Obama's Health and Human Services Department has, on its own (without Congressional approval), issued a mandate that all health insurance plans must include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. As a result, pro-life employers and taxpayers are now effectively required by law to pay for abortions.

    This mandate is an unconstitutional attack on the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This mandate also directly violates the ObamaCare law enacted by Congress, which prohibits any and all taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions.

  7. Obama forced ObamaCare on an unwilling public through bribery and lying about its cost.

    Obama managed to secure passage of ObamaCare by one vote in the Senate by bribing senators. He bribed Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with the notorious "Cornhusker Kickback." He bribed Senator Mary Landrieu with the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase."

    In addition, Obama knowingly and blatantly lied to America and to Congress about how much ObamaCare would really cost. The cost of ObamaCare to the American people over the next 10 years will not be less than $1 TRILLION, as Obama promised in his nationally televised speech to the nation. Instead, the real cost of ObamaCare to the Federal Treasury is $2.4 TRILLION, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

    But the true cost of ObamaCare is more like $10 TRILLION when you factor in the cost to the states, the cost to individual Americans who are now required to purchase Obama-approved health plans (the "Individual Mandate"), the cost of exploding health insurance premiums, the $716 billion ObamaCare steals from Medicare, and the increased cost to businesses of complying with ObamaCare mandates.

  8. Operation Fast & Furious.

    "Operation Fast & Furious" was the Obama Administration's gun-running scheme that put thousands of American-made semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress and the public, claiming he didn't know about his Justice Department's Fast & Furious operation.

    Congress has now held Holder in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas and refusing to turn over thousands of Justice Department documents on Fast & Furious. President Obama asserted Executive Privilege to try to protect Holder. But for Executive Privilege to apply, Obama would have had to have known about Fast & Furious, making the President as culpable as Holder.

    Investigators suspect that Fast & Furious was an effort by the Obama Administration to discredit lawful gun ownership in America by purposefully creating gun crimes, thus inducing public outcry for gun control. When it put thousands of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the Obama Justice Department knew these guns would be used to commit crimes, perhaps even kill some Americans. Then Obama could say: "See how dangerous these guns are. We must ban them."

  9. "Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  10. "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Imposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rules on the state of Texas at the last minute and without an opportunity for Texas to respond to the proposed regulation. EPA overreach was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from Texas affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  11. "Department of Justice (DOJ): Rejected state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  12. "DOJ: In violation of 10th Amendment, sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders. Arizona has a large number of illegal immigrants, compared to other states, and needs to be able to act to reduce the number." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  13. "DOJ: Went to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws, which require collection of the immigration status of public school students, require businesses to use E-Verify, and prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  14. "White House: Made "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was NOT in recess. The Obama Administration has ignored the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the appointments are unconstitutional." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  15. "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Interfered with a Michigan church's selection of its own ministers by trying to force the church to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  16. "Department of Energy (DOE): In 2009, the Obama Administration arbitrarily broke federal law, violated various contracts, and derailed the most studied energy project in American history at Yucca Mountain by denying it a license, thus costing the American people more than $31 billion." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  17. Department of the Interior (DOI): Forced Glendale, a family-oriented town in Arizona, to become another Las Vegas against its will by granting "reservation status" to a 54-acre plot in the town, where the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation plans to build a resort and casino." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

  18. Without Congressional approval, Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

  19. In the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, Obama illegally shortchanged bond holders in favor of Labor Unions, despite U.S. bankruptcy laws that specify that bond holders be first in line to be paid back.

  20. Eager to use the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain, Obama exposed the identity and method of operation of the Navy SEALs team that conducted the operation in Pakistan, thus exposing its members to a lifetime of risk because they have been targeted for assassination by Islamists. A short time after Obama exposed the Navy SEALs' method of operation, 22 SEALs were shot down and killed in Afghanistan. It is a violation of law for the President or any American to reveal classified military secrets.

  21. President Obama established an extra-constitutional top secret "kill list" of people (including Americans) who can be summarily killed on sight – presumably by drones -- without due process. Once on Obama's kill list, an American citizen can be targeted and executed on the opinion of a single government bureaucrat. That's not how our legal system is supposed to work.

  22. Obama Administration officials twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in October of 2012 so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the "WARN Act") requires such notices. ; Not only is this a violation of the WARN Act, it's also an unlawful use of federal officials for campaign purposes.

  23. President Obama intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.

  24. Obama knowingly lied to Congress and the American people about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his representatives repeatedly said an anti-Islamic video sparked a spontaneous uprising in Libya that resulted in the killings even though Obama knew that the attack was a well-planned military-style assault by al Qaeda on the anniversary of September 11.

  25. Michelle Obama's family trip to Africa in June of 2011, including a private safari at a South African game reserve, cost American taxpayers $424,000 for air travel alone. Mrs. Obama brought along both her makeup artist and hairstylist, as well as her mother, a niece and nephew, and her daughters, who were listed as "senior staff members."

 

https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Oh yeah, let's focus on a Tweet.



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lol. You are incredible. You ask me to provide proof of a lie, any lie, by Trump, and when I do, you whine about how Obama has lied too.
I said Obama has disappointed America.
I said if these things are true, he should be charged and removed from office.

But nothing Obama does changes the FACT that Trump is a liar.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Lol. You are incredible. You ask me to provide proof of a lie, any lie, by Trump, and when I do, you whine about how Obama has lied too.
I said Obama has disappointed America.
I said if these things are true, he should be charged and removed from office.

But nothing Obama does changes the FACT that Trump is a liar.


 He tweeted a meme!  OMG.  Every single candidate has said something off the cuff!  And, you are going to focus on that as the Holy Grail of lies!  Hilarious.worship.gif



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

And, I can prove to you that every other candidate is as "liar" as well including Sanders. So, now what?


Sen. Bernie Sanders repeats a Democratic talking point in saying that Social Security hasn’t contributed “one penny” — or “one nickel” — to the deficit. In fact, it contributed $73 billion to the deficit in 2014.
Sanders, an independent who’s running for the Democratic nomination for president, has made this claim several times, recently saying in a video he sent out on Twitter on Oct. 6 that “Social Security does not add one nickel to the deficit.” On Sept. 25, he tweeted that the program “had not contributed one penny to the deficit.” And he, like other Democrats, has been making the claim for several years.


www.factcheck.org/2015/10/sanders-misleads-on-social-security/

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sometimes politicians are right, but their campaigns can’t prove it. And we do.
That’s what happened when we decided to take a look at Sen. Bernie Sanders’ talking point that 500,000 veterans came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries. His campaign pointed us to a 2013 Senate hearing as its source — a hearing in which a Veterans Affairs official told Sanders that the number was less than half that.
But it wasn’t a case of Sanders exaggerating. We discovered more recent VA reports that put the number with PTSD at about 390,000, and that would only include veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that sought care at VA facilities. Not all veterans use VA care. Other estimates suggest the total number could be around the 500,000 figure Sanders has been using for the past year.
Sanders, who’s running for the Democratic presidential nomination, repeated his claim at a July 2 town hall event in Rochester, Minnesota, (5:30 mark) when he said: “In Iraq and Afghanistan, and I will tell you that I voted against the war in Iraq … it was not just the 6,700 men and women who died in the war. 500,000 — 500,000 came home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury.”
He has used the statistic several times in the past. On Twitter last summer, he said: “Some 500,000 men and women have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD or TBI.” And he made the claim on CNN in October, while mentioning that he was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
In fact, when we inquired about the claim, the Sanders’ campaign sent us a transcript for a March 20, 2013, Senate committee hearing on VA mental health, in which the then-VA under secretary for health, Dr. Robert Petzel, told Sanders that “about 119,000 people from the present conflicts” had been diagnosed with PTSD. Petzel said that all told, including veterans from any conflict, the VA had 500,000 under its care with PTSD. He even corrected Sanders, when the senator mistakenly thought the 500,000 figure pertained only to Iraq and Afghanistan.

www.factcheck.org/2015/07/sanders-ptsd-statistic/

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly claimed that 1 in 5 seniors “live on an average income of $7,600 a year.” The reality is not quite so shocking.
After we inquired, the expert who generated that income estimate revised it upward to $8,263, using more up-to-date figures and adjusting for a minor mistake.
Furthermore, that income figure does not count such non-cash government benefits as food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare or Medicaid, or proceeds from reverse mortgages. Nor does it include personal funds such as savings or insurance proceeds.
Sanders has made his remarks on senior income more than once, most recently in a Senate floor speech on senior hunger. The Vermont senator, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is seeking more funding for senior programs through the Older Americans Act.

www.factcheck.org/2015/06/sanders-shocking-senior-statistic/

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that “in America we now have more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth.” Not really. Sanders excludes nations such as Russia, Turkey and Brazil from his definition of “major.”
According to the World Bank, at least 41 countries have greater income inequality than the U.S. And those include Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina.
And according to the most recent Global Wealth Databook, the U.S. ranks 16th out of 46 economies studied in the share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent. Russia, Turkey, Egypt and Brazil are among those whose top 1 percent hold more of their nations’ wealth.
Sanders has made this claim a part of his standard political speech, and he repeated it May 26 as he formally announced that he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. We judge it to be misleading, and an exaggeration.

www.factcheck.org/2015/05/sanders-exaggerates-inequality/

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders said that the United States spends “almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country.” He’s wrong about that.
The U.S. spends more than twice as much per capita as the average amount spent by other developed nations, but it doesn’t spend twice as much as every one of them.
Sanders, an independent who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, made the claim during his soapbox speech at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 15.
He said that despite the Affordable Care Act, there are still millions of U.S. residents who lack health insurance, even though the country spends almost double what any other nation does for health care. (Jump to 10:55 in the video to hear his statement.)
Sanders, Aug. 15: It makes no sense to me that despite the gains of the Affordable Care Act, we continue to have 35 million people uninsured. And many of you are under-insured, right? High deductibles, high copayments. And yet, after all of that, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. That’s wrong. That has got to change.

But it’s Sanders who needs to change his talking point.
per_capita_hc_spending

We contacted the senator’s campaign to get his source, but haven’t received a response.
The U.S. spent $8,713 per capita in 2013, according to the most recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That’s far more than most other developed nations, and also more than double the OECD average of $3,453 per capita.
So Sanders has a point that the U.S. spends a lot more on health care than other nations. But he went too far in saying it spends twice as much as any other country.
After the U.S., Switzerland ($6,325 per capita) and Norway ($5,862 per capita) spent the most on health care in 2013, and the U.S. didn’t spend 100 percent more than either nation. The U.S. also didn’t spend twice as much as the Netherlands ($5,131 per capita), Sweden ($4,904 per capita) or Germany ($4,819 per capita).
We wrote about a similar claim from Barack Obama in 2008, when he was running for president. Obama was wrong then, and Sanders is wrong now.
www.factcheck.org/2015/08/sanders-hypes-health-spending/


__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Bernie. Have you not been paying attention?
Last couple elections, there hasn't been a single candidate I really liked. It was always a matter of 'well, I like this guy a little better than that guy, and his views align a bit closer to my own, so I guess that is what I will do.'
Bernie is awesome though. He is independent, and
I think he has the right idea about practically everything.
I do not like Hilary, and I was never a keen Obama supporter, so I don't know why you keep harping on them.
And the site I posted has all of his statements listed out nicely.
You cry foul when people attack the source without reading the content, maybe you should look in the mirror next time you do.


 He's an idiot.  He thinks money grows on trees.  

 

I have aves a foolishly naive young niece who likes him, too.  Must be an age thing.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Trump tweeted a meme! OMG! It's like straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ignore the other three things, and all the whole laundry list on the site, and focus on that one.
You want to dump one liar and megalomaniac out of office and drop another one in.
Trump has no respect for anyone. He will trample the constitution worse than Obama.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Ignore the other three things, and all the whole laundry list on the site, and focus on that one.
You want to dump one liar and megalomaniac out of office and drop another one in.
Trump has no respect for anyone. He will trample the constitution worse than Obama.


 And, Sanders will Save Us All!  Oh FFS.  confuse



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Ignore the other three things, and all the whole laundry list on the site, and focus on that one.
You want to dump one liar and megalomaniac out of office and drop another one in.
Trump has no respect for anyone. He will trample the constitution worse than Obama.


 Looks like he might actually uphold it.  I have seen nothing in his statements to support what you say.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Ignore the other three things, and all the whole laundry list on the site, and focus on that one.
You want to dump one liar and megalomaniac out of office and drop another one in.
Trump has no respect for anyone. He will trample the constitution worse than Obama.


 Looks like he might actually uphold it.  I have seen nothing in his statements to support what you say.


 Exactly.  



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Obama and the rest of his gang of merry marauders have been running roughshod over the Constitution. Funny how that is ignored and all of the sudden the Constituion that he completely steps on is now important but it isn't important now that he is doing it!

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Obama's Constitutional Violations 2013

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

Recommended by Forbes
USAAVoice: 4 Times When A 401(k) Plan May Not Make Sense

The Apothecary's 2013 Year In Review: Americans Care Most About Obamacare's...

Roberto CoinVoice: From East Coast To West Coast: Your Guide To The Best Ski Vacation Getaways

For Obama Crowd, Judicial Activism Suddenly Isn't Cool Anymore
For Reporters, Law Professors, Citizens: A Reference Guide To President Obama's...
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Hottest Startups Of 2015

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Obama's Lawlessness and Constitutional Violations

Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
*Entered Treaty Agreement with Iran without Advice & Consent of the Senate. No agreement (including with UN) is valid without 2/3 Senate approval. Article II Section 2.
Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.
Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3
Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2
Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3
2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.
Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t
errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3
Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment
Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.
NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.
With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powersherein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
A Constitutional law professor (even their students) should know better. The TRUTH is Obama was not a Constitutional law professor: “under no circumstances would an offer to Obama be tenured.” “The thought that the law school could have made a tenure offer to a person with no academic writing was out of the question.” Former University of Chicago Law School Dean Richard Epstein.

Clearly Obama has not respected or protected the Constitution. Obama has broken his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 1.
conservativehideout.com/2015/03/21/anatomy-of-a-lawless-president-a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-federal-law-violations/


__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

But, I know you won't actually read any of that. So, have fun focusing on Donald's Tweet.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

That is kind of why I don't waste so much time trying to argue or post links or whatever. They dont' read it anyways so it's just a big waste of time.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.
AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?
Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.
What a joke.

__________________


Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

GO DONA GO!!!!

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.
AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?
Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.
What a joke.


 ????  What do you suppose one can do?  She undoubtedly didn't vote for him.  There is no national recall process.  She probably did vote for congressmen and senators whom she hoped would oppose his policies.  

 

You did take a civics class, right?  



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:17:57 AM



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:18:31 AM

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sanders is too stupid to lie. That man is a moron. Thats why he will never get the ticket...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.

AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?

Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.

What a joke.






Oh I see. So stating incorrect facts isn't a "lie" unless someone calls him a "liar"? LOL! I guess I need to define "Is". confuse

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.
AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?
Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.
What a joke.


 ????  What do you suppose one can do?  She undoubtedly didn't vote for him.  There is no national recall process.  She probably did vote for congressmen and senators whom she hoped would oppose his policies.  

 

You did take a civics class, right?  



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:17:57 AM



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:18:31 AM


 So then why does she and everyone else get all bent out of shape about how us leberals aren't doing anything about Obama? 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.

AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?

Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.

What a joke.



What am I doing? I have actively campaigned against Obama's re-election. I actively campaign for those who I believe can make a difference. I am involved in local politics on the School Board and community. So what are you doing besides "whining on a message board"? BTW, the whine started about Trump. I just responded to your whine.



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Because you keep voting for people that support him. The GOP would impeach him, but they cant without the help of a handful of liberals...and they are too scared...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

If you impeach him you get Biden. I mean talk about Stoopid. Although, he would probably be fun at party.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Well, none of your sources even claim Sanders is a liar. The one about the veterans even supports the number of Veterans that have PTSD or TBI, just that they are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan.
AND what exactly are you DOING about Obama?
Oh, right. Nothing. Just whining on a message board.
What a joke.


 ????  What do you suppose one can do?  She undoubtedly didn't vote for him.  There is no national recall process.  She probably did vote for congressmen and senators whom she hoped would oppose his policies.  

 

You did take a civics class, right?  



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:17:57 AM



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of December 2015 10:18:31 AM


 So then why does she and everyone else get all bent out of shape about how us leberals aren't doing anything about Obama? 


 Because he's your boy.  He's promoting what you want.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

Yes. By voting.


 By voting well.  And by being an informed voter and not choosing people based solely on what they are saying that you want to hear.  People who will uphold the Constitution, people who have the fortitude to do what is needed to be done, and people who are economically savvy.  A person's stance on abortion means NOTHING to me when going to vote.  A person's stance on same-sex marriage means NOTHING to me when going to vote.  The president basically has NO SAY in issues like those and yet that's the kind of crap liberals focus on.  Who understands money?  Who understands foreign policy?  Who has a good voting record that strengthen our nation rather than weaken it?



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Isn't Bernie Sanders the one that said terrorism is a direct result of global warming? LOL!

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Of course Hillary and get up and say "Trump is the best Isis Recruiter". Wow. How absurd. Of course Dems will just go La La La like always. I am amazed at how they will viciously attack Repos and treat half of this country like the Enemy. But the real enemies, oh we have to "tolerant".

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/

«First  <  1 2 3 4 | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard