I think the growing rejection "MSM" and journalistic standards of integrity is dangerous. We are entering a post-fact world, where people will believe whatever they want and reinforce their beliefs through crackpot news outlets like Breitbart.
The post-fact world is coming due to the MSM no longer being journalistic, along with an overload of information, and the inability of critical thinking skills (due to the education system, cultural trends, and information overload). This is so easy to see if you simply compare the source material, to the report on any MSM outlet.
While some 'crackpot' news outlets are certainly biased as well (and sometimes get overly conspiratorial), they often do a good job of highlighting the above. Again, you have to have critical thinking skills in place... WITH EITHER!!!
And, I'd not say Congressional Dish is a crackpot news outlet. The host purposely is not supported by ads or NPR 'sponsorships' (i.e.: ads in disguise). She doesn't do any native advertising. She reports on what is going on in Congress... a lot of stuff the MSM doesn't report on, or distorts when they do. And, btw, I'm a conservative, while she's a liberal progressive.... yet I'm promoting what she's doing, as I see it as one of a few only hopes to get back to journalism.
Our current military involvement in the Middle East is due to Bush. Obama has had a hard time withdrawing, true, but I really don't understand how you can claim he has "escalated" things.
What has happened in the M.E., post 9/11, is in the hands of the Executive branch, as they've bypassed Congress (though it isn't like Congress would stop it either). Obama/Hillary have been quite involved in overthrowing Gaddafi... maybe you don't recall, "we came, we saw, he died!"? And, Obama seems quite intent on overthrowing Assad, as well. You know those millions of refugees?
We've got a plan to overthrow at least 7 foreign governments. Just Google 'Wes Clark 7' and see what pops up.
The problem is, you're still in this mode of Republicans are warmongers, and Democrats want peace, but can't make it happen. That's baloney. Obama hasn't stopped anything, and when there have been votes on related stuff in Congress (weapons, military operations, etc.... it's nearly unanimous bi-partisan votes). If you weren't glued to the MSM, you might know some of this.
Uh, no, I'm saying the FBI investigation resulted in no charges. And I believe in the idea of innocence until proven guilty. No charges = nothing to see here, folks.
It's my understanding that the FBI doesn't prosecute/charge. They gave the report (which was quite clear), and it's the DoJ that would have to charge. I might be wrong on that, but again, his report was quite clear. She was reckless with classified information. If you look at the law, intent has nothing to do with it.
re: innocence and charged - So, then you'd also agree that the Wall Street bankers are innocent, as they didn't get charged?
When someone is guilty, but is above the law, that doesn't = innocent.
People are allowed to wipe data from their hard drives. If it doesn't result in charges, then you are innocent. Comey, the guy leading the investigation, is a Republican -- he wanted nothing more than to charge her. If he couldn't charge her, it's because there was nothing to charge her with. Continuing to call her a criminal despite the lack of charges (and threatening to "throw her in prison") is a FASCIST TACTIC. How can you not see that?
So, if I have a bunch of criminal evidence on my computer, but can wipe it in time, then I'm innocent? That's a strange kind of morality you've got going there. So, basically, if you can get away with it, then it's not a crime?
He may have wanted to charge her, but that he didn't has nothing to do with 'nothing to see here.' Unless he lied about the findings, there was plenty to see here.
Again, this is where journalistic integrity comes into play. Have you bothered reading fact-checking sites? Here's one:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
What does that have to do with Haiti? Why don't you compare what's been done there with how much was donated? Why don't you pay attention what the leaders of Haiti are saying about it?
And, do you know that the Clintons gave around $2M to the organization that gave them a good charity rating?
I can't understand that perspective, to be honest. No matter how hard I try, I can't figure out how people believe that.
Because Trump might be a very immoral person, with a highly flawed history and lack of 'presidential' speech and such. But, Hillary has a proven track record of being involved in all kinds of horrible stuff, and backing all kinds of horrible political and social positions. She's proven to be more of the same, squared.
Trump might be bad, too. I guess we'll see. But, at least there's a chance of something different. He has some positive policies for conservatives. And, if those with liberal leanings want to complain, they should be complaining about how the DNC stole the primaries away from Bernie. While I can't stand some of his policies, I believe him to be an honest change agent (albeit on the left). And, my guess is that he would have beat Trump.
Again, the MSM didn't show you the massive Bernie crowds, and the tiny partially filled Hillary 'crowds'. Bernie was robbed.
Who is more likely to change the tax laws?? A billionaire who has avoided paying income tax for decades through loopholes, or a woman who actually pays her taxes properly? I'm a poor graduate student and I pay more taxes than our new president. Holy **** the world has gone insane.
Over half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. And, as I said, the tax codes are setup such that the uber-rich can find a lot of loopholes. But, a lot of the wealthy have also called for such loopholes to be closed. When you do your taxes, don't you take advantage of various deductions and such?
And, I could really care less if Hillary paid her taxes or not... I'm more concerned about her support of Wall Street and the lobbyists who keep the corporate greed policies in place. Trump might support them too, I suppose. The only candidate who might not have was Bernie.
