Politifact, candidates
Click to enlarge

Thanks, Ursarodinia

  1. Hmeyers says:

    Hillary Clinton is clearly the most honest candidate who has ever run for office.

    I’d like someone to try to say that with a straight face.

    A 1990s Saturday Night Live skit with the late Chris Farley would have him spitting his drink out when hearing those words.

    She and the DNC have really screwed up badly on 2 fronts:

    1) The VP pick is a disaster for a campaign that relies on identity politics. She should have picked Cory Booker, the handsome African-American Senator from New Jersey. Major fail.

    2) She and the DNC has ruined any attempt to gain Bernie supporters. And in fact, the DNC email hack has made this far worse.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Hillary had a wide variety of choices.

      Instead she chose Whitey McWhiteFace or Tim McCain or whatever the F that Clintonite toadie dude’s name is.

      That asshat was bragging about the merits of the TPP only 6 hours before he was named.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Plus if Hillary wins, then it means Kaine is the heir apparent for the party. Sanders and co are shut out for over a decade.

  2. Spudboy says:

    I have no idea how to read that graph/chart. Doesn’t matter I’m voting for Jill Stein. She didn’t even make it on this chart. Obviously she is the most honest.

  3. Charlie Primero says:

    Does anyone but old FDR Limousine Leftists like Dvorak think Politifact is either relevant and/or unbiased?

  4. Phydeau says:

    Oh lordy. Don’t be introducing external charts and tables. You’ll just upset and scare the blog natives. Everyone knows that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

    • pedro says:

      Fixing your post is becoming a full time job. Wonder when you’ll finally find your way to reality…

      “Oh lordy. Don’t be introducing such fake and biased external charts and tables. You’ll just upset and scare the blog natives. Everyone knows that reality is an alien concept to those with well-known liberal bias.”

      • Hmeyers says:

        He’s not a real liberal. Any decent person knew if the FBI indicted Hillary, that the DNC would have a real hard time not putting with real values — i.e. Bernie Sanders.

        He was happy about the non-indictment because he is a fraud and supports the corporate shill Hillary Clinton.

        Trump cancelled the California debate agreement with Bernie because he knew Bernie would mop the floor with him.

        Phydeau is total fake. He never talks about issues and has no values.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Trump didn’t want to elevate Bernie to top spot. In retrospect, he should have stuck to his guns that the system is rigged, and realized that even a Bernie win in California wouldn’t have gotten him the nomination.

          Perhaps he was worried a bad showing would cause NeverTrumpers to dump him.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Phydeau, you would have some integrity if you had some core values like a Bernie Sanders support that you should be — except you aren’t actually for a better future.

      You are just a sports fan.

      1) You support this sham called Obamacare — forcing people to buy nearly worthless high deductible policies — instead of true single payer health care like Bernie.
      2) You support bank bailouts and Wall Street money.
      3) You support horrible trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership.

      You are a fake liberal. Which is why you never talk about issues.

      You = sports fan.

  5. Ah_Yea says:

    Eideard the hate monger among us again.

    Politifact is a biased organization and their numbers are garbage.

    • Phydeau says:

      From your linked article:

      Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation’s leading “fact checkers,” finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. “PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama’s second term,” the Center said in a release, “despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.”

      And here’s a little tidbit about the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from their wikipedia page:

      The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA’s non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor

      I am shocked, shocked, to discover that a right-wing media critic organization is challenging politifact’s findings. Knock me over with a feather!

      • Ah_Yea says:

        Such is the difficulty talking to a person of very low IQ.

        You, sir, are of this low IQ. Firstly, the title of the article states “fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans”. Notice the words “biased against”? No?? What about the words ”

        There is a “truth gap” in Washington, but it doesn’t exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama’s IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

        All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them.”

        Of course you didn’t, because you’re an idiot.

        Secondly, using FAIR?? Stupid, very stupid.
        “While NPR was speaking of “groups that claim to be media watchdogs” and “are guilty of using AstroTurf-type names that disguise their real missions”, NPR pointed to FAIR, stating that “FAIR leans to the left and often criticizes the news media for giving too much time to conservative viewpoints”.[5] In 1990, Reed Irvine, then chairman of the conservative Accuracy in Media media watchdog organization stated “FAIR reflects the views of that numerically insignificant group who used to regard Pol Pot as a hero and who wept at the defeat of Daniel Ortega … Their Marxist class interpretation of media behavior is simply kooky, and their insistence that the media are dominated by conservatives makes sense only to people who think that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is conservative.”[4] Walter Goodman of The New York Times also said that FAIR’s “tone and language, notably the appropriation of words like progressive and public interest leaders and popular movements to adorn individuals and groups that suit Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting are shrill signals of its affinities.”[4]”

        So either you are a complete moron, intellectually dishonest, or both.

        Obviously both.

        • Phydeau says:

          Dude, if FAIR said the sun rose in the east, you’d swear it rises in the west.

          That’s a grown-up metaphor. Try to follow along: A fact is a fact even when a liberal points it out.

          Think about it.

        • Ah_Yea says:

          I’m so sorry Phydeau,

          It is so unseemly of me to make fun of the mentally and emotionally disabled.

          I know you cannot help yourself given your decreased mental capacity, even if that decreased capacity is the result of years of illicit drug use.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      To be fair they did rerate their George Clooney statement about Hillary’s fundraising from true to halftrue, after Politico revealed they were laundering money thru the DNC.


  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I’m with HM on this: no survey that show Hillary any where close to truthful is of any use at all. “I’m sure” these results are accurate according to whatever methodology they use….its just obvious that their methodology sucks.

    How many times has Hillary said she never sent or received classified emails? Was that lie listed once….or 1000 times?


    Course………they all lie all the time. How to tell them apart is a partisan affair.

    • Hmeyers says:

      My kinship with Bobbo has never been greater and I’ve been out-of-mind pissed the last few days.

      Anyone with a sense of values should have wanted Bernie to be the Democratic nominee because he knows what he believes and why.

      And Bernie is right.

      Everyone knew the DNC rigged everything in the primaries. Somehow this doesn’t stop the feeling of being “very pissed off”.

      Bernie Sanders represents classic liberal values — the idea that we should live in a country that protects our wages, puts our interests above those the soulless mega corporations and cares about us as people and wants us to do well.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Reportedly they are going to try and get a roll call vote on the VP nomination. Let’s see if they go the Paul Ryan route with this.

    • Hmeyers says:

      The role of government is to protect us from the excesses and the flaws of the free market model.

      The government needs to look over corporations backs and make sure our food is safe.

      Make sure that the labor practices are fair and non-abusive and that the poor do not get stomped on.

      To make sure product claims are within acceptable limits. To make sure they do not represent a hazard to your health (asbestos, poisonous, that kids toys don’t contain small parts that kill little kids).

      To have a functional government, we need a government not in bed with the megacorps.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        The role of government is to enable parties to put in power those who maintain the role of government.

  7. pedro says:

    Bernie Sanders is your run of the mill, lying to your face commie just like I’m-a-democrat fidel castro


  8. My Butt Hurts (because they keep coming for my wallet) says:

    Not that it matters, but WHERE was this “poll” taken?

    My guess, it was taken somewhere 20-somthing idiots and other clueless fools are in the majority, like a college campus — or NEW FUCKING YORK CITY!

    No matter where it was taken it really doesn’t matter because polls are nothing but pure bullshit. Anyone can create a poll to make the data suggest anything they want. It’s all just smoke and mirrors — and holly words for you to BELIEVE in.

    If you want to judge someone, look at what they’ve DONE!

    As far as I’m concerned, I see BLOOD on the hands of Hillary whereas I DON’T see ANY blood on the hands of The Donald.

    With Hillary, I also see MAJOR INCOMPETENCE from day ONE starting with a little scandal called Whitewater — which is probably why Vince Foster is now dead (because he had the goods on her). We already know about “Travelgate,” “Cattlegate” and several other “gates” not the least of which was Libya where U.S. Military are now DEAD! And all because of, guess who? That’s right. HITLER-LY! But does anyone REMEMBER? Hell no. You can forget about any so called press — they’re owned lock, stock and barrel by your other favorite fantasy fuck heads — Hollywood!

    Don’t get me wrong! With “The Donald”, I also have some misgivings. But it’s not like he went into it (Trump University, real estate, etc.) with the intent to defraud people or KILL THEM (like the Clinton’s did)! He went into it to WIN!

    So give it some thought — if you can. It doesn’t take a fool to recognize the major fucking about to come your way. That’s how EVERY election goes. The real question is, do you want the little dick or the whole bitch up inside your ass? Because THAT’S your CHOICE!

    • Phydeau says:

      Your SELECTIVE use of CAPS lock is a devastatingly EFFECTIVE way of getting YOUR point across! HILLARY IS EVIL!

      Wow, I’m convinced. 😛

    • pedro says:

      “Not that it matters, but WHERE was this “poll” taken?”

      The editor’s bathroom

  9. Phydeau says:

    It’s Clinton insanity, phase 2! I witnessed it from the very beginning… before Bill Clinton even took office, the right-wing noise machine was ramping up. Now we’ve had over two decades of irrational, blind hatred of the Clintons, and add the extra bonus of Hillary being female. It gives the misogynists a little extra boost.

    By all means, keep spewing your hate! Keep rehashing old discredited scandals. Keep making ugly comments about her gender. You don’t see how pathetic and ugly you are, but the rest of America does. And you have four months to ramp up the hatred. Good job, y’all. An outraged wingnut is Hillary’s best campaign tool.

    And if you were serious in your criticism of Hillary sucking up to Wall Street, you’d be in favor of campaign finance reform. But you’re not. Democrats have frequently proposed legislation and Republicans have shot it down every time. So you’re ugly, pathetic, and hypocrites to boot.

    I knew this post would bring out the ugly. Cranked up the venom against ol’ Phydeau. The truth hurts, doesn’t it? That dang reality with its dang liberal bias!!! 😛

  10. Phydeau says:

    Hmeyers, good job… with your feeble attempts to puff up Bernie at Hillary’s expense, you have me totally baffled. I don’t know if you’re an unwitting useful idiot for Drumpf or a clever ratfucker. Excellent! 😀

  11. NewFormatSux says:

    Politifact gave Mitt Romney Lie of the Year in 2012, and later acknowledged it was true.
    They also rated as false statements about Hillary’s server made by Republicans using talking points given by Hillary. Those are now known to be false talking points.

    Here’s an example of Politifact putting their thumb on the scales.

  12. Nice Try says:

    How can I say this? Let me try…


  13. Phydeau says:

    Ya know, the problem with living in your own little world and ignoring the real world is that the real world is going to bite you in the ass eventually and you’ll be totally flabbergasted. I know you all were *sure* both McCain and Romney were going to win (so was Karl Rove, who made a fool of himself on TV) and rather than acknowledge reality, you concoct fanciful outlandish scenarios about devious and diabolical Democrats who somehow fool *everyone* (except Fox News of course) and beat the Republicans! They couldn’t have done it honestly, they must have had some dastardly plan. And now Hillary has got one going too! How can she escape punishment from all these crimes she’s obviously committed? She’s a witch! BURN THE WITCH! (well that’s what Chris Christie wanted in his RNC speech)

    Carry on! Your foolishness is matched only by your ignorance. 😀

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      How can she escape punishment from all these crimes she’s obviously committed?

      Years of exercising power…with favors and expectations of favors given and received.

      She’s NOT innocent just because she wasn’t prosecuted. Common Sense indicated many crimes committed. Take her cattle futures. Turned $1000 into $100K in 10 months “by selling short into a market that boomed.” First time trader too. How does that happen?

      Take leaving office “in debt” and 8 years later worth $250MM. How does that happen?

      Take being investigated for email gate and the FBI reads off a damning indictment and list of violations of law: but declines prosecution. How does that happen?

      On balance: lots of crimes she did not commit as well. A flawed corrupt person in a flawed corrupt system.


      • Phydeau says:

        You just described a whole lot of politicians. Making money on sweetheart deals. Leaving office “broke” then making money lobbying, giving speeches, etc.

        Like I’ve said many times before… you want to change this corrupt system, press for campaign finance reform. But the vast majority of Republicans are against it. Why is that?

        How does the FBI not prosecute? They didn’t have the evidence. If they have the evidence, they prosecute. Simple as pie. But the Republican head of the FBI stands up and makes meaningless statements about how naughty she is. That’s bullshit. If she’s so naughty, prosecute her. If you don’t have the goods, then STFU.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Phydeaux: your original question was: “How can she escape punishment from all these crimes she’s obviously committed?”

          I have said because she is a powerful well connected politician.

          Read what Comey said Hillary had done. Its all prosecutable….HE CHOSE NOT TOO.

          Saying I should prosecute her instead is rather besides the point isn’t it?

          So….who is inching back into their own hidey hole of …..whatever we both know Pedro does.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Bobbo, while I agree with you, your reading comprehension skills have failed you again.

          • Phydeau says:

            Well bobbo, any potential crime is prosecutable, but if the odds of conviction are slim, most prosecutors won’t try. That says to me the odds of them getting a conviction here were slim, particularly with all the stories of other politicians doing similar loosey-goosey things with their private email. To me that says she’s not that different from any other politician in that respect. If you’re going to demonize her, call her particularly evil, you’ll have to find some other reason. :/

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            “Well bobbo, any potential crime is prosecutable, but if the odds of conviction are slim, most prosecutors won’t try.” ///

            Phydeaux, it is also true that “Any actual, demonstrable, and OBVIOUS crime is prosecutable, but if the odds of the system being rigged are high, most prosecutors decline to try.”

            Why win a “political” case and lose your career?

            To me………..just perhaps to me …… its more rational to look at Hillary’s history, espcially this email flap, and recognize that some politicians are above the law, RATHER THAN, to think they are simply victims of the other side.

            But once a complete defense is accepted of “they all do it” then you are just part of the problem.

            The effective difference between you and me may well be, likely is ZERO, but how we assess the World looks to be polar opposites.

            ………………..Just Look.

          • Phydeau says:

            Recall bobbo, all the bullshit faux scandals about the Clintons that have been ginned up by the right-wing smoke machine. They’ve all collapsed under inspection. That makes you think she’s getting away with murder, dodging prosecution so many times. I say they were all bullshit to start with, so of course she wouldn’t be prosecuted.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            They should prosecute her for the Chelsea cover.


  14. Bracketcreep says:

    What’s the source of data? What’s the methodology? How much is objective? How much is subjective?

    I can create a graph that says anything I want based on anything at all. I can post it on a website and pass it as scientific evidence. It’s that easy.

    People who want to believe it will lap it up. Lap lap lap.

    • Little Dammit Man says:

      Theres a link to a Facebook page but its a dead end.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      The graph is valid. It is PolitiFact’s ratings that are not.

      In fact the graph just demonstrates PolitiFact’s bias against Republicans.

  15. Phydeau says:

    Uh-oh, that commie librul George Will says Drumpf won’t release his taxes because of links to Russian mobsters.


    Gee, I wonder why Drumpf won’t release his taxes, like every other presidential candidate in recent history has done?

    • Phydeau says:

      I’m sure one of the smart folks on this blog can explain it to this dumb librul.

      • ± says:

        You can’t figure out on your own that Trump is a lying sack of shit just like Clinton? Possibly worse since he isn’t even a politician yet and arguably lies as much as she does.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        He’s waiting for Obama to release his transcripts.

      • Phydeau says:

        Y’all don’t beat up on Drumpf a fraction as much as you beat up on Clinton. Come on, be a man, admit you’re a Drumpf fan. Don’t hide it.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      the New York Times on March 29, 2012:

      Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

      Here’s the Times today, July 27, 2016:

      Regardless of whether Mr. Putin is out to help Mr. Trump, voters would be right to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown so much admiration for such a dangerous adversary.

  16. Phydeau says:


    Too funny! The “Freedom Kids” are suing the Drumpf campaign for breaking promises they made. Get to the back of the line kids, there are hundreds suing him for breaking contracts.

    Whatever happened to “character matters”? Oh right, that only applies to Democrats. Silly me.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Really, you want to run with that? You don’t know that Obama and the Democrats have done many of the same things? In fact, the city of Philadelphia is upset over the loan they gave the DC for the convention and are worried they won’t get that back.

      • Phydeau says:

        Yes, I’ll run with that, NFS. One or two or even a few on one side, versus hundreds if not thousands on the other side, Drumpf showing a consistent pattern over decades of screwing everyone he did business with.

  17. I.Dohno says:

    The problem is that there usually isn’t enough substance to what they say to judge accuracy of the content. Also I’m not sure if untrue is the same as lying and vice versa.

  18. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    In review, I see Ah-Ya actually posted some facts for a change. Let’s parse:

    1. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. /// Yes, an obvious lie at the time “in order to get the bill passed.” Obama was up against the lies of the Pukes trying to stop passage. Remember the Death Panels? Remember bills to Privatize health care…and all the BS that all that was needed was Malpractice Reform and Interstate Competition? They all lie, all the time… this time, the lie of Obama pales in comparison to the lies of the Pukes…..as all lies geneerally do.

    2. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. /// And it has. CU allows Corps to spend unlimited $$ in US campaigns. Guess who owns many “US” corporations?

    3. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. /// Was that Obama? or Hillary?? Early in the instance…or later?? And who cares? Commenting on news as its breaks is always wrong…trying to form public opinion. Seems to me Obama said it was a confused mess? But…yea.

    4. It was Obama’s IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. /// Yes…and they deserve it. Good for the Obama IRS finally enforcing the laws. If you don’t like it….when you get back into office, enforce the laws against the Dumbos…Hopefully, everything will work out BUT NOT ENFORCING THE LAWS against everyone doesn’t work at all.

    5. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year. /// Hazy on that one. No one would think taxes won’t go up “forever?” because you know: forever is a long time.

    Good job Oh_No==actually a kernel of truth in those comments. Wildly out of any context that has much relevance at all…….but good job (for you) nonetheless.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      So if you were giving Politifact ratings they would be?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Fair Question.

        I already mouthed off that any survey that shows Hillary as not lying every time she opens her mouth is not of much use.

        So….I think the “survey” is about useless. Such ratings are opinions only. More helpful would have been the raw data as in How many issues surveyed and how they were judged. All the import is in the footnotes (if any).

        I would say “all” the fact checkers are usefull and important for: checking facts. FACTS NOT OPINION.

        Big difference that too many, including too many here, fail to differentiate.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        For the statements you just reviewed.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Makes no sense to me. Rephrase as you appear to me to only reask the very question I just responded to.

          I’m sure I’m missing what clear to you?

          • NewFormatSux says:

            #1-5 above, give Politifact Ratings, true,pants-on-fire, etc.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Oh….thanks…Yeah, I see that.

            I don’t rank order the politicians so closely as to be able to rank them….although….in relative order…I would agree Bachman is more nuts than Trump whose buffoonery is more extreme than Gingrich’s careful calculations of misstatement.

            Its all about how thin you want to slice the baloney===whereas I prefer a nice pure cut.

            I don’t know the definitions, I don’t know the methodology and its all in the context that they all lie/position/spin all the time.

            Again: take each issue and separate Facts from Opinion.===but in truth, I hardly listen to ANY politician for any reason. They are all asshats. I REJECT the/our entire system.

            So…..ha, ha…….that stated: all fact checkers are too lenient. A POX ON THEM ALL.


      • NewFormatSux says:

        You numbered 1-5 in response to AhYea. Rate those.

  19. I.Dohno says:

    Dick Cheney was so honest he couldn’t even fit on the scale!

  20. IM77 says:

    Can anyone point out where I can find a chart that is the exact (or close) opposite to this one? I feel pretty certain it’ll be closer to reality than this one is.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      What would the opposite be? The chart covers lies and truths. What opposite could there be?????

      • IM77 says:

        Lies where the chart shows truths, truths where the chart shows lies, and likewise with the others in between.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Oh….that mechanical?

          You act like you don’t know what a survey does. YES… they have bias and yes that should be pointed out and understood.

          But these surveys perform a function. If you think they are so far off as to imply the truth is just the opposite of what they show…… then create your own survey and show those results.

          Otherwise…. you are just hiding in your own alternative reality. THAT could not be true…. could it?

          • IM77 says:

            Hearty Har. Good for a chuckle. Bobbo- always good for a laugh and once in a while (perhaps 1 in 8-12) can be taken seriously. Oh, and btw, yes, I’ve been involved with so-called surveys before and I know very well how graphics can be generated to make whatever one wishes to be true appear to be true. Alternate reality? Definitely in the case of this particular graphic I feel confident. Best example here is Hillary being shown as the most trustworthy. Oh, PALEEEEZZ!

  21. Phydeau says:


    WTF? Trump asking Russian espionage services to hack Clinton’s email servers?

    Continuing the bizarre…

    • NewFormatSux says:

      False, as there is nothing available to be hacked. The servers were wiped clean, and nothing available to recover. Trump knows this. He is asking them to turn over what they hacked in the past.
      Plus we have been assured by Hillary that there was no classified material on the server, so there is no national security issue on the yoga schedule. It merely allows the FBI to have a full record of what was deleted.

      • Phydeau says:

        Wow. Amazing to see what has become “normal” in wingnut world.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          I assume NFS is being mostly sarcastic with the second paragraph…. perhaps even unknowingly?

          But quite correct on the first paragraph.

          I think the Dems/Media are over reacting to Drumpf’s statement…. if not… chargine him with things he clearly did not say… and even did not imply.

          Ha, ha—another forum commented that Trump’s int’l expertise comes down to confusing Putin with any other Country Club Member.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Is there something you disagree with?

          Are you saying it is a national security issue to have someone look at her deleted e-mails which she told us were not work related?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Of course.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Why would looking at non work related e-mails be a national security issue?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Gee Whiz NFS. Hillary LIES!…..JUST LOOK at the chart.

            Comey’s review of the FBI investigation reported that she had documents MARKED Top Secret that she said she never did.

            Lied about the that….why would she not lie about the other? And lying need not be the only issue: maybe she is just wrong, of a different opinion, forgot, or is just trusting her aides did what she told them to do…and they didn’t.

            ALL KINDS OF REASONS for investigators to ………. wait for it …. actually investigate.

            How many murders would be solved if the police took every suspects word for it that they didn’t see anything and don’t know nothing? I mean… not ever suspect is as pure as you are.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Do you ever read? See what Phydeau has told us. There is nothing to this story. There is no criminal action. Thus no national security issue.

            Apologize for your silly statements.

            Of course, even if you are right, there is nothing available to be hacked, as I said.

  22. Phydeau says:

    Geez, I’m getting Drumpf fatigue. Just when you think he’s gone as far as he can, he goes farther.

    Mr. “I’m going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and Pennsylvania and New York and Michigan and all of America” has applied to the government to let him hire low-wage FURRINERS! at his estate and golf club because he can’t find Americans to work for the shitty wages he pays.


    It is only with the most morbid of curiosity that I wait to see how the Drumpf apologists here spin this. No matter what he does, you still worship him. He really could go out and shoot someone and you’d still worship him. That’s why you project the same slavish adoration onto us liberals. I’m talking to you, pedrito. You assume everyone worships as obediently as you.

    And it’s so cute when you say you hate Drumpf just as much as Hillary, but 100% of your venom is spewed out against her.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Trump said “I know the system better than anyone, and only I can fix it.”

      Rather than keep things the way they are to benefit himself, he is calling for a change of the visa laws to put a stop to the very thing he is doing along with thousands of other companies.

      Meanwhile Obama has effectively doubled the number of H1B visas, by giving out EAD status to all spouses of visa holders, when before they were not allowed to work. He is also increasing the cap in other ways by executive order. Hillary is supported by Silicon Valley and will do more of the same.

      • Phydeau says:

        Thanks for the gullible Drumpf worshipper perspective, NFS.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          So do you support or oppose increasing number of H1 visas?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          You still haven’t explained why it’s a problem for Russia to hack Hillary’s deleted e-mails.

    • Cristof says:

      None of this matters anyway, the dirt on Hillary Clinton will continue to be released and it will certainly strangle the Democrats chance for winning the election.

      You may as well get used to it now, her own stupidity will be her undoing.

      As it should be.

  23. Dwight E Howell says:

    Why should I believe anything these people say?

  24. Glenn E. says:

    I’ll tell you who lies a lot. CBS Tv. They are the biggest lying liars.

    The claimed, two weeks ago, that they were moving the series “Braindead” to Sunday nights. To make room for the party conventions. But the conventions are over, now. And I just checked the next two weeks of CBS programming. And Braindead is still slotted for Sunday 10pm EST. So, not being moved back to Mondays. I think CBS just used political coverage, as an excuse to sideline another program they don’t like. Relegating it to the grave yard of late Sunday nights. Just as they did with Elementary’s, last few episodes of the season. Moving it from Thursday nights, so new cop series “Rush Hour”, could debut there. Guess what? It was a flop. Now Code Red is there. So will CBS return Elementary to Thursdays? Or keep it where the sun don’t shine, on Sundays?

    Meanwhile, CBS’ darling of military propaganda, NCIS, remains in its 8pm Tuesday night slot, faithfully. Even though 8pm is the comedy slot, all other nights of the week. They got to be sure the kiddies watch this recruitment program, before going to bed. That’s CBS’ deal with the Pentagon. Kissin their asses, for favors.

  25. Phydeau says:

    Whoops… looks like Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, might still be taking money from Russian dictators… no conflict of interest there! Trump loves their style…

    It is not clear that Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine ended with his work with Mr. Trump’s campaign. A communications aide for Mr. Lyovochkin, who financed Mr. Manafort’s work, declined to say whether he was still on retainer or how much he had been paid.


    Shall we ask the Big Orange Cheeto if his campaign manager is still in bed with Russian gangsters? Whoops, Russian statesmen, I mean.

    Really guys? Really? This is the guy you’re supporting?

  26. Phydeau says:

    And the hits just keep on coming…

    As usual, Hillary & the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/ Bernie. Unacceptable!

    Drumpf tweeted this on July 29th. What he didn’t mention was that the debate schedule came out before the NFL released their game schedule. Just another lying lie from a lying liar. This is the kind of thing Politifact looks at when they make their pretty graphs.

    Really guys, really? This is the guy you’re supporting?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      C’mon Phydeau: I assume you have heard the excellent response to your argument: NFL games are ALWAYS scheduled for Sunday Nights that time of year.

      I mean….I do expect more than a stooges response from you. Maybe you have been interacting with the RightWingNuts for too long? UP your game. Make a good and valid argument for its own sake and your own acuity.

      Like a chess game: the object is not “to win” but rather to play your best game. Now…..you already have the winning position…play the game.

      • Phydeau says:

        Could be bobbo, I’m not much of a football fan. You really think a bipartisan panel setting up debates last year, without knowing who the nominees would be, wanted to put them against NFL games to reduce viewers. How could that possibly be seen as the Democrats beating up on poor little Drumpf?

        It’s either a conspiracy of mindblowing proportions, or Drumpf knows he’ll get his ass kicked in a debate and is trying to get out of it. I’ll take the latter.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Who really knows? I assume both sides have reasons to not actually want debates…but don’t want to be seen as backing away from them.

          Hence: the schedules we get with every candidate who thinks they are behind coming to want more debates.

          Seems all set in stone to me.

  27. Phydeau says:

    Get used to it, wingnuts… I’m going to plague your election threads with stories like this. It’ll be easy. I’ll just find the most recent thing Drumpf has said, and it’ll most likely be another lying lie. I’m going to rub your wingnutty faces in the shit the Big Orange Cheeto is spewing out. And some of you (like NFS) will say “that’s a mighty fine aroma!” 😛

    Go ahead and do your copy/replace thing, pedrito. And thanks for your unique contributions to this blog. 🙂

    • Luis says:

      You are the most hateful, disagreeable person I have ever seen on this blog. It’s kind of sad.

      Try a little more fiber in your diet.

      • Phydeau says:

        Luis, you must be new around here. I’m just one person. You haven’t seen the bile and venom spewed out by the vast majority of right-wingers around here. Hateful, spiteful, sexist, racist, idiots. Drumpf supporters all around. Of course if you’re one too, what they say makes perfect sense, and you won’t understand what I’m saying here.

        And the funny thing is, most of them are chickenshit enough to pretend they don’t support him. As much as I disagree with them, I have to respect the folks like NFS who say straight out they support him. That takes balls, which most of the folks here don’t have.

  28. Luis says:

    I don’t comment often but I’m not new. I have watched you in interest do exactly what you accuse others of doing. You should look up the definitions of the words hateful, spiteful, and especially the word bigot. Then go back and read your hate filled words.

    You fit the definition of the word bigot to a T.

    So what if someone has a different opinion and they like a different candidate, that doesn’t give YOU the right to spew your hatred.

    Its hard to believe you haven’t been banned.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Luis–you are rotating off your rocker more than a little bit.

      bigot: ((did you look it up…or just coast on your own presumption?)) A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

      Well…glad I looked it up, as I thought it had more racist tones than this more generalized definition. Fair enough. Everything: fits.

      I disagree with Phydeau from time to time…even in this thread if you look above. Phydeaud has been nothing but reasonable and responsive to my disagreements. How can that be possible?

      ………..you know………. “maybe”………. if people have actual reasons, instead of pure BS, for what they post, they would get the same reactions.

      Until then, BS deserves little respect. Know what I mean….. Luis?

      • Luis says:

        I didn’t need to look it up, but thanks for asking.

        But at least you recognize that Phydeau is an intolerant, hate filled, hypocritical, bigot.

        I suppose he has his reasons, Hillary being a pillar of virtue and all.

    • Phydeau says:

      Aw, poor baby, Luis. Your delicate sensibilities are offended when I call Trump “Drumpf” but you ignore all the stupid nicknames that Pedrito and his ilk give Clinton. And I’ve called Drumpf stupid, selfish, idiotic, but never spit out the venom the wingnuts do about Clinton. They get personal about it… probably insecure babies intimidated by powerful women. Get a clue, Luis.

  29. HasAnAgenda says:

    Oh wow…I now see the error of my ways….thank you, Eideard, for showing me the light. I had no idea this incredibly reputable organization actually had stats like this. Hillary, Obama, Sanders…..the best of the best obviously. I’m switching my voter registration tomorrow and will forever vote for the “Transparent Party”.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6776 access attempts in the last 7 days.