What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ScoobyDoo said:
Lying wins elections. You just have to lie about the right things.

SUCKERS
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised about Trump backing away from economic nationalism. That is the one thing he campaigned on that I thought he might actually believe in. I mean aside from his "very good brain" and his "only the very best"advisers. :p

But I thought he really was a Fortress America dude. I'm hardly shocked that is also turning out to be a bunch of hooey -- in fact, I'm kind of pleased since I am one of those Evil Globalists who thinks the UN, WHO, and Doctors without Borders are good. But that was the core of why blue collar whites backed him. What kind of excuse will the RWNM whip up to keep the rubes in line?
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

unofan said:
Bob became a caricature of himself by the end before he left. Honestly, he struck me as someone who had fallen into the over 65, Fox News watching death spiral. But then it somehow became personal to him whenever I commented (the story of which I will not regurgitate here, long time posters will remember it), so my experience dealing with him may not be the same as what others recollect.
Click to expand...

I only remember Bob playing martyr over religious subjects. On most topics he seemed rational even though I do not think we had a single political opinion in common except that the world went to sh-t sometime between 1517 and 1914.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

rufus said:
I'm talking about the 80% overturned figure, numbnuts.
Click to expand...

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

So, although correctly worded, the blog post left many readers with the mistaken impression that 80 percent of the Ninth Circuit Court’s decisions were being overturned by SCOTUS. What it actually said was that of the very tiny fraction of decisions by federal courts of appeal that SCOTUS agrees to review each year (0.1%), 80 percent of that small portion of appeals originating with the Ninth Circuit Court were overturned.

...

In short, social media claims that 80 percent of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit were overturned were flat out false; more than 99 percent of that circuit’s decisions stood and the Supreme Court reviewed a scant 0.106 percent of circuit court cases each year. Although figures from 2010 maintained the “Ninth Circuit [had] the second highest reversal rate at 80 [percent],” the “highest” was the Federal Circuit court’s median of 83 percent. However, left out of both the rumors and the blog post was the fact that the average rate of accepted cases ruled upon differently by the Supreme Court than a lower circuit court was over 68 percent across all courts. So of less than one percent of all cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 68 percent of decisions across all circuits were overturned. Eighty percent of decisions by the Ninth Circuit were overturned when escalated to the Supreme Court, but the numbers were misleading taken out of context.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

rufus said:
I'm talking about the 80% overturned figure, numbnuts.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the 80% figure is that far off if we're talking about decisions of the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court.

However, it's a bit misleading. I think all the circuits have a pretty high reversal rate. I don't think the Supreme Court takes cases just to say "we agree." They're usually taking them because they're not quite content with the lower court's decision.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ericredaxe said:
So you assume Brent is a liar? That is a pretty heavy accusation...
Click to expand...

LOL, nice.

I really don't know what he is, but putting anything on e-mail, Bengazi, or the Foundation without doing the same to don isn't exactly being equal and honest.

Say that you are tired of the policy of patience with Korea- great, that's fair. Or that you don't like the ACA because healthcare should not be free. Fine.

But going with things we know are partially made up, and after so many years zero prosecutions have ever been filed over, and most of the news is pretty questionable- that puts a lot into doubt.

And if that's so offensive that you can't deal with the criticism that comes along with saying that, tough.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

FlagDUDE08 said:
A "charity" that has over 90% of the money going to "administrative costs", i.e. back to you? Perhaps Haiti could shed some light...
Click to expand...

Wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/

Financial statement rules require a nonprofit to split its expenses between program services, fundraising, and management/general costs (the latter two are collectively what are referred to as "overhead"), Mittendorf told us.

He said that in 2014, 87.2 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses were on program services.

"Of course, this only speaks to how the organization used its funds and not whether that 87.2 percent was allocated to the most effective program efforts, but it is all we have in terms of verifiable data on this question," Mittendorf said.

The American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch, reached the same conclusion. It has given the Clinton Foundation an A rating and says it spends only 12 percent of the money it raises on "overhead."

"The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity," Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. "They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100."
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

alfablue said:
But going with things we know are partially made up, and after so many years zero prosecutions have ever been filed over, and most of the news is pretty questionable- that puts a lot into doubt.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need to have "were they prosecuted" as the standard for whether people can question the actions of candidates or politicians. There have been a lot of politicians who have done a lot of sketchy things lately but have never been prosecuted for them. I don't see a lot of people on the left hesitating to call Bush II or Cheney terrible people or criminals, and as far as I know they've never been prosecuted.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Don't you guys get it. Clearly if you're going to funnel a lot of illegal money to yourself, the best way to do it is through a worldwide charity that you give tons and tons of PR to and which has to follow strict accounting guidelines. It's really the perfect crime. I mean, especially when you're getting $250K to $1M per speaking engagement, it's totally worth the extra time and expenses and scrutiny to set up the charity, with the sole purpose of enriching yourself.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Kepler said:
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
Click to expand...

Also, the 6th circuit (containing such hippie states as MI, OH, KY, and TN) and the 11th circuit (containing such pro-terrorist havens as AL, GA, and FL) have higher overturn rates. And the median overturn rate is 70%, to put it in actual context. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/ (And of course all of the stuff you mentioned about only a marginal percentage of cases actual getting reviewed by SCOTUS, and the fact that if SCOTUS bothers to take the time to review there's probably a good chance they will overturn anyways.)
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

They are drafting an exec order to leave NAFTA.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

French Rage said:
Don't you guys get it. Clearly if you're going to funnel a lot of illegal money to yourself, the best way to do it is through a worldwide charity that you give tons and tons of PR to and which has to follow strict accounting guidelines. It's really the perfect crime. I mean, especially when you're getting $250K to $1M per speaking engagement, it's totally worth the extra time and expenses and scrutiny to set up the charity, with the sole purpose of enriching yourself.
Click to expand...

I certainly failed at life not realizing this sooner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top