Chelsea Clinton just called Trump ‘misogynistic’ and ‘sexist.

[Rob L 3,811]

I see your post got a plus 1. not surprising, considering...

But which two were a hoax, pray tell? I didn't check them all, but the ones I checked seemed to be true.

I'll summarize for ya:

http://listverse.com/2015/08/25/10-most-absurd-things-to-ban-on-politically-correct-college-campuses/

Your spotted checking may need an overhaul. Or maybe you just need to hook up to the Internet?

2nd myth busted

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/hohoho.asp

[Rob L 3,811]

2nd myth busted

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/hohoho.asp

So I checked a third one, About banning the term brainstorming, and that appears valid ( although the epilepsy foundation said there is nothimg offensive anout the term)

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Here is one myth busted

http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-04-17/spring-spheres-instead-of-easter-eggs-not-so-fast/

The frisky.com. omg Lol

Even when you read the story this 10 cent site posts it offers no proof. It says and I quote, " it may not be true "

It offers nothing and you ain't busted nothing

Regroup misrebile epic fail

[Rob L 3,811]

The frisky.com. omg Lol

Even when you read the story this 10 cent site posts it offers no proof. It says and I quote, " it may not be true "

It offers nothing and you ain't busted nothing

Regroup misrebile epic fail

No i crossed checked that story with the Seattle PI story. Never happened.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yeah, using Snopes alone doesn't qualify either, considering their political slant in recent years.

[Rob L 3,811]

The frisky.com. omg Lol

Even when you read the story this 10 cent site posts it offers no proof. It says and I quote, " it may not be true "

It offers nothing and you ain't busted nothing

Regroup misrebile epic fail

I dont think you understand the meaning of the word epic. Ben Hur = epic

[Rob L 3,811]

Yeah, using Snopes alone doesn't qualify either, considering their political slant in recent years.

So uou didn't read the attached proof from the employment agency at the center of the controversy and chose to believe an unsubstantiated report. Rumour over proof.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's an interesting think WKR brings up about violence at Trump rallies. Why is it that it only happens there? Who is behind these violent outbursts, trying to sow discord and mayhem?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/06/rent-a-mobs-targeting-trump-rallies/

IDK who, but SOMEONE is behind the turmoil. Often, one had only to ask who benefits the most to get a perspective on where the blame lies.

So, all 20 + incidents are the fault of Clinton, but Trump himself has advocated it. Does that make it right?

Wow, really? Kudos to a wife for enabling her husband to sexually assault other women? I'll just walk away from this one...

You mean the same thing about folks here advocating for Trump when he's been accused of rape? Or what about the accusations his wife is facing right now?

And why did Oriz's comment get taken down? He didn't break the TOS from what I saw. I was working on STAT homework this weekend so I couldn't reply.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Don't ask me, bro, I'm not a mod. You know how wacky that stuff gets sometimes.

And you know better than to go down the road of a presidential candidate being accused... it's a fact Hillary broke national security laws, and not even a slap on the wrist. Nixon must be rolling in his grave!

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Don't ask me, bro, I'm not a mod. You know how wacky that stuff gets sometimes.

And you know better than to go down the road of a presidential candidate being accused... it's a fact Hillary broke national security laws, and not even a slap on the wrist. Nixon must be rolling in his grave!

Just saw his stuff was removed. I was in the middle of an epic smackdown post!

If it was a fact, then why didn't the FBI not prosecute her? And the same thing goes for Trump, with all the scandals and things he's been hit with over the years, he shouldn't be within a mile of the WH, but he is.

[Rob L 3,811]

Just saw his stuff was removed. I was in the middle of an epic smackdown post!

If it was a fact, then why didn't the FBI not prosecute her? And the same thing goes for Trump, with all the scandals and things he's been hit with over the years, he shouldn't be within a mile of the WH, but he is.

The obvious answer State Department, Hillary, Bill, The Media, FBI, The President, the speaker of the house, judges of Mexican Heritage, the DNC, the IRS...all corrupt

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

The obvious answer State Department, Hillary, Bill, The Media, FBI, The President, the speaker of the house, judges of Mexican Heritage, the DNC, the IRS...all corrupt

Yep, read an article written on Hillary that says she has to work overtime to debunk every single thing about her, while Trump's very real scandals are practically ignored.

[Rob L 3,811]

Yep, read an article written on Hillary that says she has to work overtime to debunk every single thing about her, while Trump's very real scandals are practically ignored.

▪ The Huffington Post reported that Trump quintupled the rent charged to the campaign for using Trump Tower between March and July, even though the campaign had fewer paid staff in the latter month. The obvious inference to draw is that Trump raised the rent once his campaign was being financed primarily by outside contributions rather than the candidate himself.

▪ The Wall Street Journal reported that, as of July, 17 percent of all of the Trump’s campaign spending had gone to “companies linked to himself or his children, or to reimburse their travel expenses.”

▪ The Post’s David Fahrenthold reported that Trump had to pay a $2,500 fine to the IRS because “Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution (of $25,000) to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.” Oh, and by the way, after Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s campaign received that money, she decided not to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. This is but one in a series of Fahrenthold’s investigations into Trump’s bogus claims of charitable donations.

▪ The AP reported the appearance of a similar pay-for-play deal with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott back in 2010 when Abbott was the Texas attorney general and decided, like Bondi, not to pursue an investigation into Trump University. A former Texas official says he was told to drop any investigation for “political reasons,” according to CBS.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article100917847.html#storylink=cpy

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

▪ The Huffington Post reported that Trump quintupled the rent charged to the campaign for using Trump Tower between March and July, even though the campaign had fewer paid staff in the latter month. The obvious inference to draw is that Trump raised the rent once his campaign was being financed primarily by outside contributions rather than the candidate himself.

▪ The Wall Street Journal reported that, as of July, 17 percent of all of the Trump’s campaign spending had gone to “companies linked to himself or his children, or to reimburse their travel expenses.”

▪ The Post’s David Fahrenthold reported that Trump had to pay a $2,500 fine to the IRS because “Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution (of $25,000) to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.” Oh, and by the way, after Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s campaign received that money, she decided not to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. This is but one in a series of Fahrenthold’s investigations into Trump’s bogus claims of charitable donations.

▪ The AP reported the appearance of a similar pay-for-play deal with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott back in 2010 when Abbott was the Texas attorney general and decided, like Bondi, not to pursue an investigation into Trump University. A former Texas official says he was told to drop any investigation for “political reasons,” according to CBS.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article100917847.html#storylink=cpy

Yawn.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Yeah, using Snopes alone doesn't qualify either, considering their political slant in recent years.

You know what they say, "Truth has a liberal bias."