Author Topic: Integrity  (Read 36938 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #200 on: May 13, 2015, 06:12:40 PM »
Fox News Poll: Huckabee seen as more ethical than most, Clinton less
By Dana Blanton
Published May 13, 2015
FoxNews.com

Hillary Clinton wins! Except this is one race she’d rather lose. The former secretary of state and current presidential aspirant tops the list as being “less ethical” than other politicians.

GOP candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is on top as being “more ethical” than others.

That’s according to the latest Fox News poll that asks voters to rate several announced and unannounced 2016 contenders as being more or less ethical than “most other politicians.”

CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

Some 44 percent of voters think Clinton is less ethical than the typical politician. She’s followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 37 percent “less ethical.”

On the other side, Huckabee (36 percent “more ethical”) and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (33 percent “more ethical”) are each considered more ethical than the average politician by about one third of voters.

The poll also finds that more than a third of voters (37 percent) are “very” concerned scandals would disrupt a Hillary Clinton administration if she were to win. That’s about twice as many as feel that way if a Republican were to win the White House (19 percent).

Still, more than half are at least somewhat worried scandals would have a “serious effect” on either a Clinton (61 percent) or a Republican administration (51 percent).

Just over half of voters are following news about the Clinton Foundation accepting financial donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Among only those following the news, 74 percent are worried about scandals if Clinton wins.

Overall, a 57 percent majority says it is likely Clinton was influenced by foreign contributors while she was at the State Department.

Thirty-three percent of Democrats say Clinton was influenced by foreign contributors. Compare that to 65 percent of independents and 82 percent of Republicans who say the same.

Views on what that means for her presidential run are mixed: 29 percent think it’s a big enough problem to disqualify her from running, another 31 percent says it’s a serious problem, but not a disqualifying one, and 33 percent say it’s nothing more than people picking on the Clintons.

A 57 percent majority of Democrats thinks the foundation scandal isn’t a big deal -- it’s just people picking on the Clintons.

Despite 42 percent of Democrats saying they are worried about scandals in a Hillary Clinton administration, it hasn’t hurt the level of support she receives for the nomination. Currently 63 percent of self-identified Democratic primary voters back her, unchanged from 62 percent last month. Her support has ranged from 55 to 69 percent since December 2013.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only other announced Democratic candidate, receives 6 percent support. That puts him behind Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren who comes in at 13 percent and ties him with Vice President Joe Biden.

In the race for the GOP nomination, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and neurosurgeon Ben Carson come out on top with 13 percent each among self-identified Republican primary voters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is close behind with 11 percent and Huckabee gets 10 percent.

Support for Carson, who formally announced his candidacy May 4, is up 7 percentage points. He had 6 percent support last month.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio -- who lost most of his post-announcement bump -- is next at 9 percent. Paul receives 7 percent support and Christie - who has not yet announced - and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz each garner 6 percent.

All others receive less than six percent.

The top four among those who are part of the Tea Party movement are Carson (24 percent), Walker (14 percent), Cruz (12 percent) and Paul (10 percent).

Hypothetical Matchups

For the first time, Bush has the edge over Clinton, albeit by just one percentage point (45-44 percent). Even so, in the head-to-head match-ups it generally looks like Clinton is weathering the “Clinton-cash” storm as she bests all other Republicans tested, topping Huckabee by 3 points, Rubio by 4, Cruz by 5, and Walker and Carson each by 6. She tops Ohio Gov. John Kasich by 8 points and business woman Carly Fiorina by 12.

Independents are more likely to back the GOP candidate over Clinton in each of the hypotheticals, except in match-ups against the two lesser knowns -- Kasich and Fiorina.

Bush now tops Clinton by 45-32 percent among independents. Last month they split 34-34.

Men, married voters, whites and working-class whites prefer Bush over Clinton. Women, blacks, moderates and voters with a college degree favor Clinton over Bush.

Women prefer Clinton over the Republican in each match-up, including Fiorina (55-32 percent).

Pollpourri

Among Republicans, 59 percent think Huckabee is more ethical than other politicians and 51 percent feel that way about Paul. None of the other GOP hopefuls hit the 50 percent mark.

For Clinton, 55 percent of Democrats see her as being more ethical than other politicians, 8 percent say less ethical and 33 percent say about the same.

Who does best among independents? Paul and Huckabee. Over a third of independents think they each have higher standards than other politicians (37 and 36 percent respectively). Clinton does worst, as nearly half of independents -- 48 percent -- say she is less ethical than most others.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 9-12, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error is higher among the subgroups of Democratic (+/-5%) and Republican (+/-4.5%) primary voters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/fox-news-poll-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clinton-less/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Integrity
« Reply #201 on: May 13, 2015, 06:23:33 PM »
Huckabee is a slimy as the rest of them (and just as divisive)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/13/ron-fournier/mike-huckabee-and-diabetes-cure-he-endorsed-no-hea/

Quote
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is distancing himself from the unusual ways he earned money before announcing his White House run May 5, but journalists aren’t letting the former Arkansas governor off the hook.

Huckabee, who shed about 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, filmed TV and radio infomercials advertising a program to "reverse" diabetes in February and March. Huckabee also lent his email list to carry ads about a looming food shortage and a cancer cure found in the Bible.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Integrity
« Reply #202 on: May 13, 2015, 08:01:18 PM »
lol, huck isn't running for prez.  he's running for high profile and high marketability.

he knows he isn't going to win the nomination, but it sure keeps him as one of the top 10 repubs for another 5-10 years.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #203 on: June 15, 2015, 01:21:26 PM »
 :-\


whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Integrity
« Reply #204 on: June 16, 2015, 11:05:18 AM »

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #205 on: June 16, 2015, 11:06:50 AM »
Haha...    :D

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #206 on: October 15, 2015, 03:20:57 PM »
Fox News Poll: 60 percent say Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi
By  Dana Blanton
Published October 14, 2015
FoxNews.com

A new Fox News poll finds that by a nearly two-to-one margin, voters think Hillary Clinton has been deceitful about the State Department’s role in the events surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Thirty-two percent say Clinton has been honest with the American people, while 60 percent disagree.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

Despite doubts that Clinton has been honest, less than half of voters (46 percent) think Congress should continue investigating her handling of the terrorist attack.  Exactly half say it’s time for lawmakers to move on (50 percent).  That’s mostly unchanged from this summer, when 47 percent said continue and 49 percent move on (July 2015).

Among Democrats, nearly one in three says Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi (30 percent), and one in five thinks the Congressional investigation should continue (19 percent).

Clinton was head of the State Department when the September 11, 2012 attack that killed four Americans took place.

Overall, only 13 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing.  A large 78-percent majority disapproves.  A year ago, it was 12-78 percent (October 12-14, 2014).  Over the last year, the highest approval lawmakers received was 21 percent in both February and March (2015).

Democrats (19 percent) are more than twice as likely as Republicans (9 percent) to approve of Congress.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from October 10-12, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/14/fox-news-poll-60-percent-say-clinton-has-been-dishonest-on-benghazi/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #207 on: October 26, 2015, 09:53:53 AM »
She clearly lied when she blamed the attack on a youtube video and claimed the attack was by an angry mob (see 1:00 to 1:25 and 1:35):



Before she made the above statements, she said this:

"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," said Jordan, Real Clear Politics reported. "Here's what you said at 11 o'clock that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, 'Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaida- like group.' You tell — you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story. Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him: 'Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.' It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group. And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this: 'We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.'"


Blatant dishonesty. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #208 on: October 26, 2015, 09:55:21 AM »
Hillary Clinton Accused of Revising History on Defense of Marriage Act

Image: Hillary Clinton Accused of Revising History on Defense of Marriage Act
Monday, 26 Oct 2015

When the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, Bernie Sanders was a member of the House and Hillary Clinton was first lady. Nearly two decades later, they're battling for the Democratic presidential nomination and have very different recollections of how the law that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage came about.

On Friday, Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that her husband, President Bill Clinton, signed DOMA into law as a "defensive action" to stave off a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. "DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further," said the Democratic front-runner.

Sanders, who voted against DOMA, remembered it differently. "Today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something worse. That’s not the case," the Vermont senator said Saturday at the important Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa. "There was a small minority opposed to discriminating against our gay brothers and sisters. Not everybody held that position in 1996."

But is this true, or is it revisionist history?

Bill Clinton's aides and confidants admitted to the New York Times in 2013 that he knew DOMA was wrong and discriminatory toward gays and lesbians. His former press secretary Mike McCurry said: "His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996." Democratic consultant and Clinton ally Hilary Rosen added: "In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful."

Neither said it was a strategic move to prevent something worse. And indeed, that might have been difficult. The Federal Marriage Amendment wasn't introduced until 2002. It didn't become part of the Republican Party platform until 2004.

In 1996, Americans opposed legal same-sex marriage by a margin of 68 to 27 percent, according to Gallup. Today, they support it by 60 to 37 percent.

A group of senators who voted for DOMA wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court in 2013 that they thought its passage "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more."

Prominent figures in the LGBT community, meanwhile, rejected Clinton's recollection of history.

"Hillary's version of DADT and DOMA is so wrong. The only 'defensive posture' was for their personal politics not LGBT," activist David Mixner said on Twitter. He added: "The LGBT community should NEVER allow any politician to revise our noble and courageous history for political purposes."

Radio host and HuffPost Gay Voices editor-at-large Michelangelo Signorile called Hillary Clinton's version "revisionism" and said it was "simply not true that DOMA was signed to stop something worse." He continued, "Hillary doesn’t need to re-write Bill history to make her better. She’s fine, has promised a lot."

DOMA was poised become law with or without Bill Clinton's signature. It passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House, margins easily big enough to override a presidential veto. The question to gay rights advocates was whether Clinton would stand on the right side of history and force Congress to override his veto. To their dismay, he signed the bill.

https://twitter.com/hilaryr/status/retrospect, the practical consequence of Democratic support for DOMA can be spun as having delayed that push, or it can be portrayed as emboldening social conservatives to go further. The alternate course of history is not knowable.

Seventeen years later, in March of 2013, Bill Clinton had changed his mind and argued in a Washington Post op-ed that the law he enacted was unconstitutional. That summer, the Supreme Court struck it down, concluding that its "avowed purpose and practical effect" was to impose a separate status "stigma" on gays who want to marry. This past June, the court went further and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, rejoiced.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/clinton-doma-revising-history/2015/10/26/id/698972/#ixzz3ph4YRRYj

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #209 on: October 26, 2015, 06:50:28 PM »
Kelly: Mainstream Media Ignored 'Bombshell' Email at Clinton Benghazi Hearing
Oct 24, 2015 // 1:52pm   
As seen on The Kelly File

Megyn Kelly called out media outlets for crowning Hillary Clinton the undisputed victor following the Republican-led Benghazi hearing on Thursday while overlooking a "bombshell" email to the Egyptian prime minister.

Kelly played clips of Clinton and other administration officials repeating a talking point that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack was the result of extremists hijacking a protest of an anti-Islam video that had sparked other protests in the region.

She highlighted a Sept. 14 meeting between Clinton and family members of those killed in the attack, in which Clinton reportedly directly blamed the video's producer for the deaths.

But newly unveiled emails show that just two days prior, Clinton had been telling people, like the Egyptian PM, that the film had nothing to do with the attack.

At the hearing, Clinton explained that she had been going by an Islamist group's claim that they had carried out the attack, which they retracted the next day.

But Kelly said the email proves Clinton knew the film wasn't to blame.

"And yet she and others looked into the cameras and again and again told us a different story," Kelly said.

"To watch most of the media you would think we never saw that email," Kelly said. "To the contrary, the messaging was 'She won, it's over, move on.'"

Kelly then played a barrage of clips showing the favorable press coverage.

Watch her report on "The Kelly File" and discussion with Chris Stirewalt and Howard Kurtz above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/24/megyn-kelly-says-mainstream-media-ignored-bombshell-email-hillary-clintons-benghazi


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #210 on: December 09, 2015, 06:15:34 PM »
Is he dishonest, incompetent, or a combination of both?

Intelligence report commissioned by White House says ISIS not contained
Published December 07, 2015 
FoxNews.com

A new intelligence report commissioned by the White House says that the ISIS terror group will grow in numbers and gain ground unless it suffers significant losses in Iraq and Syria.

The findings sharply contradict previous statements by President Obama and other White House officials that the Islamic State has been "contained" by a program of U.S.-led airstrikes and the deployment of approximately 3,500 U.S. forces to train and otherwise aid moderate Syrian rebels and Kurdish fighters.

On Sunday, a U.S. official told Fox News that ISIS has been able to effectively recruit and attract affiliates despite losses on the ground, and has now supplanted Al Qaeda as the primary global jihadist threat.The official said that going forward, the entirety of the ISIS threat must be addressed, and the group's main base of operations in Syria must be “degraded.”

The findings were first reported by The Daily Beast, which said the White House asked for the assessment prior to the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, in which ISIS militants killed 130 people in a series of coordinated shootings and suicide bombings.

In response to the report, The Daily Beast said President Obama had directed Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford to come up with new strategies against ISIS.

One recommendation, announced by Carter Tuesday, is a special operations cell with the ability to capture senior ISIS leaders in the hope of finding out more about their networks.

However, the Daily Beast reported that Carter's announcement took military planners by surprise, since they had yet to finalize important details, including the rules of engagement under which such raids would be carried out.

The eight-page report was compiled by a team of analysts from the CIA, NSA, and other agencies, the website reported.

"This intel report didn't tell us anything we didn't already know," an official told The Daily Beast. "It was lots of great charts showing countries highlighted across the globe, with some groups having pledged allegiance to ISIS and others leaning towards it."

The report also described how the terrorist group with aspirations of founding an extremist Islamic caliphate already has a network of groups that have pledged allegiance or are vying for membership in a dozen countries.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report

Click for more from The Daily Beast.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/07/new-intelligence-report-commission-by-white-house-says-isis-not-contained.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #211 on: December 11, 2015, 06:30:55 PM »
Just incredible how much cover she is getting from the MSM. 

Benghazi Family Hits Back: Hillary Clinton Lied About Us To George Stephanopoulos

Hillary ClintonAP Photo/Willie J. Allen Jr.
by JOHN NOLTE
10 Dec 2015

Kate Quigley, sister of Glen Doherty, one of the four murder victims of the September 11 terror attack against our Benghazi consulate in Libya in 2012,  accused Hillary Clinton of lying to George Stephanopoulos about what the former Secretary of State told her and other grieving Benghazi family members.

During her Sunday appearance on ABC’s This Week, Clinton said outright that she never told the Benghazi families that an anti-Muslim YouTube video caused the terror attack that resulted in the deaths of their loved ones.

In other words, Clinton accused these family members of lying.

Stephanopoulos asked her point blank, “Did you tell them it was about the film?”

Clinton flat-out denied it.

“No,” she said. “You know, look, I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans.”

When asked if Clinton told the truth to Stephanopoulos, Quigley told a Boston radio station Thursday that Clinton is now lying about telling the grieving family members the lie about the YouTube video:

This is a woman that will do and say anything to get what she wants. I have very little respect for her. I know what she said to me and she can say all day long that she didn’t say it. That’s her cross to bear. She knows that she knew what happened that day, and she wasn’t truthful, and that has come out in the last hearings — that she told her family one thing and was telling the public another thing. …

People made mistakes but for some reason somebody decided to perpetuate this lie and I don’t know if we’ll ever know. It fascinates me that people sit in a room and talk about, “Hey, let’s come up with this movie idea and Mohamed and a protest.” Nobody has ever owned up to where that story came from and why, and somebody knows. … It is a fascinating thing that in this day and age, a huge lie was created around a terror attack on 9/11.

So not only did Clinton lie to these people (and America) as they were grieving over their loved ones, Clinton is now publicly defaming them as liars on the Sunday shows.

Here’s the full audio. Hat tip to Mediaite.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/10/benghazi-family-hits-back-hillary-clinton-lied-about-us-to-george-stephanopoulos/

Leatherneck

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1158
  • Still as lean, just as mean, former US Marine
Re: Integrity
« Reply #212 on: December 11, 2015, 06:36:42 PM »
lol, huck isn't running for prez.  he's running for high profile and high marketability.

he knows he isn't going to win the nomination, but it sure keeps him as one of the top 10 repubs for another 5-10 years.
I see him as a realistic running mate for whoever actually wins the nomination.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #213 on: December 14, 2015, 05:05:20 PM »
And the MSM is silent on continued dishonesty by our president. 

Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists - Then Misleads Country About It
Dec 14, 2015 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES and THOMAS JOSCELYN
 
President Barack Obama says his administration will continue releasing terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests.

The bizarre argument comes in a new interview with Olivier Knox of Yahoo! News and is one of several comments in their discussion that reinforces the president's stubborn nonchalance on issues related to jihad. Obama also shrugs off concerns about recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that only a "handful" of former detainees have returned to the fight and claiming that only "low-level" terrorists have been released from the detention facility. Both claims are demonstrably false.

In the interview, Knox asked Obama about Ibrahim al Qosi, a Guantanamo detainee transferred by the Obama administration to Sudan in July 2012, who recently resurfaced as a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, often described as the most dangerous al Qaeda branch. Al Qosi appeared in a propaganda video disseminated by the group last week. Knox asked Obama whether having someone return to the fight "in a big way," like Qosi, has caused the administration to revisit its vetting procedures.

"I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS," Obama began. "And if we want to fight 'em, then we can't give 'em these kinds of excuses."

There is no reason that Obama would need to be "persuaded" of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it's not.

Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it's not true.

Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.

A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he's being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper's office, Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That's a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.

(Obama's formulation there is odd, too, using "embittered" as if the reason the jihadists would once again take up arms against the United States is their time in detention.)

Obama continued, describing the process officials use to determine whether a detainee can be released or transferred. "The judgment that we're continually making is: Are there individuals who are significantly more dangerous than the people who are already out there who are fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do they have special knowledge that ends up making significant threat to the United States?"

It's an odd set of criteria for evaluating threats unless your main objective is emptying the detention facility. These are standards set up to allow the administration to claim that the knowledge base and skill sets of Guantanamo detainees are outdated. But former Guantanamo detainees return to the fight with elevated status and often assume leadership roles in the groups determined to attack the U.S. and its interests. Just like Ibrahim al Qosi.

Obama went on to suggest that those released don't present much of a threat anyway. "And so the bottom line is that the strategic gains we make by closing Guantanamo will outweigh, you know, those low-level individuals who, you know, have been released so far."

Again, Obama's claim is false. Many of the 653 detainees transferred or released from Guantanamo as of September 2015 were much more significant than "low-level individuals." It's a group that includes al Qaeda operatives who worked directly for Osama bin Laden, senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban, and veteran jihadists with decades of experience fighting.

According to assessments provided by Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the original population of Guantanamo was 43 percent "high risk," and 36 percent "medium risk." Only 20 percent of those ever detained at Guantanamo were deemed "low risk." The Bush administration transferred many of the detainees found to present minimal risks to the U.S. and by the time Obama took office, 98.7 percent of those remaining were considered medium risk (23.8 percent) or high risk (74.9 percent).

Consider the Taliban Five, released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Although Obama administration officials initially downplayed the significance of these detainees, intelligence and military officials made it clear that they were high-risk transfers. Michael Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Obama, said it was "very, very likely" that the five Taliban leaders would return to the fight. Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, who briefed Congress shortly after the transfer, testified that there was a high likelihood that at least four of the five freed detainees, and possibly all of them, would rejoin the fight.

And what about Ibrahim al Qosi? He's the Guantanamo recidivist that triggered Knox's question to the president. Was he a "low-level" fighter, as Obama suggested?

He is not. Qosi is now a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the group's public spokesman. AQAP has repeatedly attempted to attack the U.S., while taking over large parts of Yemen. The dossier compiled by U.S. officials for Qosi demonstrates that he served bin Laden in multiple roles because he was so trusted.

A threat assessment of al Qosi prepared by the intelligence officials on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) reported that he would present a "high risk" of taking up arms against the United States or its allies if he were freed from the detention facility. "Detainee is an admitted veteran jihadist with combat experience beginning in 1990 and it is assessed he would engage in hostilities against US forces, if released."

Virtually everything Obama said in his Yahoo interview about Guantanamo is false. Guantanamo is not a leading recruitment tool for jihadists. From the earliest days of the facility, many of those detained there were deemed more than the "low-level" fighters the president would have us believe. And far more than a "handful" of released detainees – nearly 200 suspected or confirmed – have returned to the fight.

We are left with this uncomfortable but incontrovertible fact: Barack Obama is releasing jihadists known to present a serious threat to the United States and he's misleading the country about it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-releases-dangerous-jihadists-then-misleads-country-about-it/article/2000221

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #214 on: December 14, 2015, 05:30:05 PM »
Biggest political lies of the year, according to the Washington Post.  Plenty of blame to go around.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/14/the-biggest-pinocchios-of-2015/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #215 on: December 23, 2015, 08:55:03 AM »
Poll: 59 Percent of Americans Say Hillary Clinton Is Dishonest

Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a Town Hall rally at Sokol Auditorium December 16, 2015 in Omaha, Nebraska. Clinton was joined onstage by Billionaire Businessman Warren Buffett. (Photo bySteve Pope/Getty Images
by PATRICK HOWLEY
22 Dec 2015

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is not doing well in polls centered on her honesty and trustworthiness.

A Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday shows that 59 percent of Americans view Hillary Clinton as being “not honest and trustworthy,” with only 35 percent thinking that she is, actually, honest and trustworthy.

The 24-point gap in the honesty poll could mean problems for Hillary Clinton, who is basically running against herself – and her own ethics scandals – at this point in the Democratic primary. If Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16% continues to pillory Clinton from the left during the primaries, and Donald Trump continues to hammer her for the fact that she has a pending FBI investigation into her private email scandal, the general election results could swing against her.

Some 55 percent of poll respondents said that Clinton does not share their values, while 50 percent said that she doesn’t care about their problems.

However, 58 percent said that she has strong leadership qualities, and her numbers for “experience” better Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s numbers in the poll.

Trump leads the Republican field in the poll with 28 percent support, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
 at 24 percent.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/22/poll-59-percent-americans-say-hillary-clinton-dishonest/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #216 on: February 01, 2016, 10:01:55 AM »
Why is nobody nailing Obama for this HUGE bald-faced lie he was just caught in?
January 31, 2016
Michael Dorstewitz
 
President Barack Obama was caught in another lie, this one involving his former secretary of state’s email scandals.

The New York Times reported Saturday that the president had emailed Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton at least 18 times to her private, non-secure server while she serves as secretary of state:

The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.

The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.
 
However, in May of last year, Obama told CBS News that he’d first learned of Clinton’s use of a private server “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

But if you’re a fan of ABC News, and pretty much any mainstream news outlet, don’t expect to hear anything about this reported.

ABC News dedicated a mere one minute 28 seconds to the bombshell revelation that the State Department had uncovered 22 top-secret emails that he been run through Clinton’s private server, according to the Media Research Center. The network didn’t even wave as they sped right by the information about the 18 emails from Obama.


Can you imagine if it was George W. Bush?

This is the same server she claimed was never used to send or receive emails contained any classified information.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/31/why-is-nobody-nailing-obama-for-this-huge-bold-faced-lie-he-was-just-caught-in-300720#ixzz3ywMpPXEY


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #217 on: February 18, 2016, 07:33:28 PM »
Wow.   :-\

Hillary: ‘I’ve Always Tried’ To Tell the Truth, ‘Don’t Believe’ I’ve Ever Lied Or Ever Will
by IAN HANCHETT
18 Feb 2016

Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she has “always tried to” tell the truth and doesn’t “believe” she’s ever lied or ever will in an interview on Thursday’s “CBS Evening News.”

After she was asked about Jimmy Carter’s pledge that he wouldn’t lie to the American people, Hillary said, “Well, I have to tell you, I have tried, in every way, I know how literally, from my years as a young lawyer, all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.”

She was then asked if she’s always told the truth to which she responded, “I’ve always tried to.”

After anchor Scott Pelley stated, “Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.” Hillary said, “‘[Y]ou’re asking me to say, ‘Have I ever?’ I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/18/hillary-ive-always-tried-to-tell-the-truth-dont-believe-ive-ever-lied-or-ever-will/


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #218 on: February 19, 2016, 08:10:03 AM »
Poll: Hillary Clinton Least Honest And Trustworthy Of All Presidential Candidates
GUY BENTLEY
Reporter
02/17/2016

Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed as the least honest and trustworthy of all Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the latest YouGov poll.

Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.

Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Clinton in the trustworthiness category by four percentage point. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen as overwhelmingly more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Sanders beats her by a margin of 32 percentage points.


Honesty and Presidential candidates (Credit: YouGov)

“Sanders is the clear winner on a quality that matter most to a third of the public – being honest and trustworthy.  In fact, his rating on honesty is the highest of any of the remaining candidates with the public overall, Republican or Democrat.  Clinton and Republican Donald Trump fare the worst,” writes YouGov’s Kathy Frankovic.

“More Republicans describe Sanders as honest and trustworthy than don’t, by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent.  Republicans give their party’s frontrunner, Donald Trump, similar ratings as they give Sanders on honesty.  Sanders’ Democratic opponent fares much worse on this characteristic overall and with members of each party.  Just seven percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats describe Clinton as honest and trustworthy.”

Though Clinton loses out in the honesty department, she polls significantly better than Sanders when it comes to readiness to be commander in chief and ability to deal wisely with the economy.


Hillary vs Bernie (Credit: YouGov)


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/#ixzz40d9w04Yt

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #219 on: March 14, 2016, 01:22:32 PM »

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Integrity
« Reply #220 on: March 15, 2016, 12:12:04 AM »
The Don lacks integrity. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730


Cue some idiot to insult politico because they're now on the trump bandwagon...

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Integrity
« Reply #221 on: March 15, 2016, 06:09:09 AM »
Poll: Hillary Clinton Least Honest And Trustworthy Of All Presidential Candidates
GUY BENTLEY
Reporter
02/17/2016

Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed as the least honest and trustworthy of all Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the latest YouGov poll.

Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.

Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Clinton in the trustworthiness category by four percentage point. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen as overwhelmingly more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Sanders beats her by a margin of 32 percentage points.


Honesty and Presidential candidates (Credit: YouGov)

“Sanders is the clear winner on a quality that matter most to a third of the public – being honest and trustworthy.  In fact, his rating on honesty is the highest of any of the remaining candidates with the public overall, Republican or Democrat.  Clinton and Republican Donald Trump fare the worst,” writes YouGov’s Kathy Frankovic.

“More Republicans describe Sanders as honest and trustworthy than don’t, by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent.  Republicans give their party’s frontrunner, Donald Trump, similar ratings as they give Sanders on honesty.  Sanders’ Democratic opponent fares much worse on this characteristic overall and with members of each party.  Just seven percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats describe Clinton as honest and trustworthy.”

Though Clinton loses out in the honesty department, she polls significantly better than Sanders when it comes to readiness to be commander in chief and ability to deal wisely with the economy.


Hillary vs Bernie (Credit: YouGov)


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/#ixzz40d9w04Yt

she has the nation fooled... she is a freaking chameleon. 

TuHolmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
  • Darkness is fated to eventually be destroyed...
Re: Integrity
« Reply #222 on: March 15, 2016, 08:36:40 AM »
The Don lacks integrity. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730

I think on the scale of trustworthy candidates, the worst has to be Trump, then Hillary, then everyone else.

Those 2 are absolute con artists, but Trump is definitely worse. I've honestly never seen (in my life) a politician lie so much.

He's lied about lying and he seems to do it a lot. 77% of the time. Could you imagine that out of 100 sentences you lied in 77 of them?

That's probably worse than 240. :D

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Integrity
« Reply #223 on: March 15, 2016, 09:10:50 AM »
she has the nation fooled... she is a freaking chameleon. 

i disagree. I think most people KNOW she lies whenever politically convenient.  she's been caught in so many - her supporters ACCEPT it because they liked living in the clinton years better than the bush years.

they just kinda excuse it.  the same way carson supporters excused him making up parables and stories all the time to get his point across.  They were complete fabrications.... but the MESSAGE or lesson was more important.  Same reason they still consider bill oreilly to be credible - they decided his lies were okay because the message he was telling was more important.

clinton supporters (and I am NOT one of them) just feel they can look past many hilary lies because financially, they'll be living better under her rule, than they will cruz or trump.  (although I think a hilary and trump presidency would be nearly identical)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #224 on: March 15, 2016, 09:57:54 AM »
I think on the scale of trustworthy candidates, the worst has to be Trump, then Hillary, then everyone else.

Those 2 are absolute con artists, but Trump is definitely worse. I've honestly never seen (in my life) a politician lie so much.

He's lied about lying and he seems to do it a lot. 77% of the time. Could you imagine that out of 100 sentences you lied in 77 of them?

That's probably worse than 240. :D

Oh I beg to differ.  Not worse than 240.  lol   :)

But I do agree about Trump.  It's a little spooky how blatant he is with dishonesty and how he completely gets away with it.  Check out the clip below and how Megyn Kelly takes apart his claim about Trump University. 

'The Kelly File' Fact-Checks the 'D-Rating' on Trump University
Mar 14, 2016 // 10:58pm
As seen on The Kelly File

Donald Trump has taken issue with the assertion that his defunct school, Trump University, received a D-minus rating from the Better Business Bureau in 2010.

Tonight, The Kelly File showed why the GOP front-runner is off-base.

Trump has said that Trump University had an A-rating, not a D-rating – and at the last GOP debate, he gave Fox News a document that does in fact bear an A grade.

But after further inquiry, Fox News has learned that that grade is for a different entity called Trump Entrepreneur Initiative (TEI), explained Megyn Kelly.

That's what Trump University changed its name to in 2010, when it was under siege.

That business, TEI, only operational for a few months, received an A.

But that doesn’t change the fact that Trump University had a D-minus rating before it went out of business in 2010.

Trump University no longer exists, and its successor, TEI, was effectively closed within weeks of opening.

“We stand by our reporting, which has been verified by multiple news organizations, as well as the Better Business Bureau,” said Kelly.

Watch more, above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/14/trump-university-received-d-rating-kelly-file-fact-checks