Miscellaneous: October 2016 Archives

Mark Cuban said Clinton "dealt with all of her classified documents using hard copies, and the FBI reports confirmed that." She did not; the FBI did not.

This is simply incorrect. The whole point is that the FBI concluded she DID illegally have classified documents on her server, in threads she participated in.

He also said "there's never been any reported evidence of pay-to-play" with the Clinton Foundation. This is also obviously false. While there's no proof, there's a ton of highly suspicious circumstantial evidence. In fact, the Obama Administration itself, and Chelsea Clinton herself, have said that the Foundation did not properly avoid the appearance of wrongdoing (just ask Doug Band what he thinks of Chelsea's actions to root out potential corruption at the Foundation).

Mark Cuban is a smart guy, but either he is terribly ignorant about these legal and political issues, or he hates Trump so much that he is willing to lie about the facts. G+
The notion that we should avoid a person or company because they back one candidate or another is far more damaging to our society than either candidate could ever be. G+
At the end of Stranger Things, I wanted to see Mike's parents go the way of the parents at the end of Time Bandits. That would've been the best 80s homage of all. G+
Having two ears and one mouth does not imply listening twice as much as speaking.

It implies that knowing where a sound is coming from is more important than sending sounds in multiple directions simultaneously. G+
Lowest scoring tie in the NFL since 1974 (when overtimes came to the regular season). Pathetic game. I've never laughed so hard at a football game as when that last kick sailed left. G+
There was so much consternation about how Chris Wallace would do as moderator ... mostly from people who really haven't seen Wallace much, apparently, because they thought he wouldn't do a great job. He did do a great job, and he did it without the "fact-checking" so many people said they wanted from the moderators.

Wallace could have pointed out the fact that Clinton was misrepresenting what Heller was (the law in question was not just about requiring trigger locks on long guns: it also banned all handguns, and she was in favor of that). But he let her answer stand, and let Trump respond to it as he chose to do.

He followed the Jim Lehrer model -- stay out of the way and let the candidates speak -- and he did it even better than Jim Lehrer. While this was not the best presidential debate we've seen, it was one of the best moderations of a presidential debate we've seen. G+
I don't know about all y'all, but I said Bush was properly elected, and Gregoire, and I'll say the same of Clinton. G+
The only way to say Obama cut the deficit but two-thirds (as Clinton did tonight) is to say that a massive spending increase in the FY2009 budget that was passed by the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signed into law by President Obama, and included Obama's stimulus ... was Bush's fault.

No foreign government manipulating U.S. elections before? See former FDR VP. G+

18.10.2016 20:30

| | Comments (0)
Why is the press giving any time or space to women making allegations about Trump? It's extremely irresponsible, unless there is some kind of corroboration of the claims.

A woman saying she was groped on a plane 30 years ago ... anyone can say that. It's not newsworthy. Maybe it's true, but we have no reason to believe it just based on her word.

And no, the fact that he implied he gropes women is not evidence he groped a particular woman. And no, the fact that any women have made allegations does not make any of the allegations any more likely to be true.

Let's be responsible with the truth, please.

Please? G+
If we spent as much working to make the country better as we did to advocate for or against presidential candidates, would the country be markedly better, regardless of who wins the election?

I'm inclined to think the answer is Yes. G+
The question "why would these women make up these stories about Trump?" is perhaps the dumbest question I've heard all year.

I am not saying any of them are lying, though I do assert I need far more than their word to believe them, obviously. I simply disregard assertions like this until I have sufficient evidence. I don't even consider if it's true until I have serious evidence that it's true or false, and so far, I have none.

But the idea that I should believe them because they have no reason to lie is extremely silly. People spend extraordinary resources -- including time, money, and credibility -- trying to defeat Trump and Clinton. People spend resources to tell lies about Trump and Clinton all the time.

We all know this. So why would we believe that people wouldn't tell lies like this to defeat Trump?

Of course, again, I am not saying they are lying. But saying the fact that you don't know their motive to lie is evidence that they have no motive to lie, especially when there's a ready-made motive staring you in the face, is completely myopic. G+
Republicans used to take pride in being principled. Now, they attack fellow Republicans for being principled. G+
What if Clinton didn't show up to future debates with Trump because he's so disgusting? G+
Remember: "price gouging" in a disaster is not evil; it's a necessary good. G+
<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Miscellaneous category from October 2016.

Miscellaneous: September 2016 is the previous archive.

Miscellaneous: November 2016 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.