Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Great graphic. I am getting so sick of the "Hillary is a crook" or "untrustworthy", blah, blah, blah. I suspect a lot that sentiment is just a manifestation of misogyny, even when women express that. Sometimes, women can really be bitchy to other women, though they're usually also Republicans, so no big surprise.
Here's another "great graphic" from PolitiFact..."Our campaign depends on small donations for the majority of our support."— Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 in a victory speech after the March 15 primariesRated "Mostly False" by PF.Hillary $200 and Under $50,121,743$200.01 - $499 $7,417,714$500 - $999 $7,707,360$1000 - $1999 $16,631,135$2000 and Over $79,081,346Bernie $200 and Under $118,040,465$200.01 - $499 $7,484,276$500 - $999 $5,544,989$1000 - $1999 $4,602,086$2000 and Over $2,846,599This is through 02/29/2016
A vote for Clinton is a vote for more war!http://tinyurl.com/jtwxckt
What 4:10 said, but with the letter C
So I take it 4:10 and 6:02 are pro war. Well then fuck you too!
Yes, 10:57, saying that Hillary Clinton isn't pro war means that we are pro war. Brilliant reasoning.
5:09 Where did they say Hillary wasn't against war? They just said Fuck you. How grown up. And BTW her ACTIONS speak otherwise.Tell it to Libya! At least I have reasoning. Jeesh!
Except he loses to Hillary.
Those polls mean nothing during primary season, but I'm sure Sanders and his supporters will keep at it.
Considering the carnage that took place in Brussels this morning, I wonder Der Fürher Drumpf will respond. He's soooo trustworthy.
I think Bernie Sanders must get a lot of bad advice, he is quite often wrong. Hillary, on the other hand, knows her stuff- public service is her life's work, she's not there trying to start a revolution with white people.
@3:04"Hillary, on the other hand, knows her stuff"And shares it over unsecured server also too...Scroll a bit thru here:https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47xkz1/hrc_email_release_megathread/Enjoy!
Reddit Sanders-ville is a pit and doesn't it bother you that you are parroting right-wing talking points?
@7:03Rather than spout off about reddit being "Sanders-ville",please do click on the citations given and read for yourself.I'm not "parroting right wing talking points"Denial ain't a river in Egypt....
I did click and read. "And shares it over unsecured server also too..."Right wing talking point.
Smart people already know this, and for the willfully stupid it's just another inconvenient fact to be rejected.
Most of us who are alive have been force fed 30 plus years of Hillary hate from the right AND left. No wonder many buy into the idea she is a dishonest person. I would love to know how people would feel about any one of us if we had the shit that has been said and printed about her directed at us.
2:19, a vote for any candidate is a vote for more war. Like it or not, it is what we do in this nation. It will take a lot more than changing presidents to change our continual involvement in wars. With today's terrorist attacks in Belgium, you can be sure the nation will amped up for a whole lot more.
I see a huge difference in the propensity for wars between democratic and republican presidents. Just saying...
TC Thank you for a reasonable response.
The statement " Hillary is more honest than Bernie " Is a lie in itself.
Proving yet again that the masses attending Rump rallies and giving him standing ovations have no clue what they're talking about. You BET that he loves low-information voters! Who else would attend?Careful what you pray for; you just might get it!
Anyone who can honestly say HRC is truthful needs his/her head examined. That woman would call the sky purple if the group of people she was speaking to believed it to be purple. There is an abundance of proof to that. C'mon Bernie!! I hate that people are personally attacked, in both parties, because personal lives don't matter. EVERYONE has the same ordeals. But damn people. RECOGNIZE that this race is rigged and the media is bought.
Give us the proof that you say is in such abundance (and don't use your feeeeelings or your gut instincts).
Bill Clinton calls Obama legacy ‘awful,’ potentially dooming wife’s campaignhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/21/bill-clinton-calls-obama-legacy-awful-potentially-/
Bill Clinton was describing the Republican obstruction.
Bernie Sanders supporters have taken to citing the Moonie Times as a source of real news and information?
Reading the Washington Times is a bit like reading the Wall Street Journal -- both are right wing mouthpieces.Disclaimer: I'm never going to type the word "conservative" ever again, in describing the Republicans, the Tea Party, or non-liberals. They aren't conservative any more. That would imply they're charitable, respect their fellow man, responsible, honest, and hard-working.They aren't any more. They "lie for the Lord", they seek power rather than responsibility, they blame others for their own mistakes, and resist even beneficial change.
Poor Bernie. The further he falls behind, the more desperate he becomes. Transcripts and now, totally misrepresenting Bill's statements. I guess some people believe this crap. Sad.
It's worse than reading the WST. The Washington times doesn't even try to hide its bias.
According to the graphic, John Kasic is the truthiest.
Not if you add "True", "Mostly True" and "Half Truth" together.BTW, you should have seen the graph when Bush was still in the race. Believe it or not, he ranked 2 percentage points above Kasich as far as "truthiness" was concerned.Between last fall and a month ago Carson and Trump vied every week for the least truthful. Carson usually won out with an abysmal 16% truthfulness factor. Trump was usually between 20% and 25%, and he still is.
If someone in conversation tells you they don't think Hillary is trustworthy, a good reply is, "I guess you also think Obama was a disaster"? Shuts them right up.No one, and I mean no one, can defend what the republican party has become.Hillary Clinton 2016
The nice thing re the Democrat side is that both candidates are good candidates. I would be happy with Hillary or Bernie. There is no one on the Republican side that looks interesting to me. Not one of them! I am Canadian so I can't vote but I think it's pretty great that the Dems have two solid candidates!
I agree. Why does it have to be that many Democrats can only love one but hate the other? Save your hate for "helmet-head" Trump.
But wait, au contraire, these numbers do not say what you think they do. Information Clinton put forward was evaluated 43% more than information from Sanders, C-174 vs S-75. Total truth evaluations done by Politifact:174 vs 75True Results: 42 vs 11C-24.1% S-14.7%Mostly true:47 vs 27C-27% S-36%True and Mostly true combined:42+47=89 11+27=38 C-51.15% S-50.67%half true:36 Vs 14C-21% S-19%Mostly false:25 vs 12C-14.4% S-16%False: 22 vs 11C-12.7% S-14.67% False and Mostly False combined:22+25=47 12+11=23C-27% S-30%Pants on Fire:2 vs 0C-1.1% S-0%Since the number of evaluations are quite significantly different between Clinton and Sanders by about 100 the only way to evaluate the results is by percentages. Due to Sanders having much lower numbers the margin of error for him would be much larger as statistically speaking small sample numbers are considered unreliable. What would the statistical significance be +/- 5, +/-2? One would also need to ask why are Clinton's statements and answers evaluated more than Sanders's or Sander's less. Under true Clinton appears to tell the truth more, but if both true and mostly true(of which Sanders has a much higher percentage) are combined they are pretty much equal: C-51.15% S-50.67%Under half true they are also nearly the same, C-21% S-19%Under mostly false C-14% S-16%, same storyUnder false, C-12.7% S-14.67%, same story With mostly false and false combined, C-27% S-30%, same storyPants on Fire, C-1.1% S-0%If the two Clinton pants on fire results, of which there are null for Sanders are added to her false result of 12.7% she gets a 13.8%. The same goes for the combined false and mostly false results, 27% plus 1.1 is 28.1% with certainly no statistical significance from Sanders. Really the Pants on Fire result should probably count as a higher percentage so if doubled would increase her result to 14.9% compared to Sander's 14.67% making Clinton and Sanders pretty much equal there as well. Adding the doubled amount of 2.2% to her combined mostly false and false totals yields 29.2%, which is higher than Sanders, but certainly not statistically significant. I did each calculation only one time so there could be a mistake. Please feel free to double check me.
Here is politifact's page where I got my numbers.
I'm for Hillary, but whomever becomes our nominee, I'm fine with voting for them. Compared to the clown car on the other side, both candidates have run campaigns they can be proud of. To me, that says a lot about both of them.
Not by much if you add the Trues and Mostly trues. She also has one pants on fire and Sanders has none. What you really need to pay attention to is Kasich. He's still in the race. If Kasich teams with Cruz and put themselves on the same ticket, one as Potus and the other VP they'll defeat Trump at the convention. That is what you need to fear. Second danger is if the convention is locked someone could put forward Paul Ryan and you could see him on the ticket with god knows who as his VP.
Don't feed the trolls! It just goes directly to their thighs.