Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

My brain is broken. Apparently Trump has just accused Hillary of being the original Birther, unlike himself who knows Obama is American...

(Different news outlets have different takes on this. Pick and choose.)

[Phmcw]

I read something of that effect before.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

Here it is, it's unproven (so false). But what is proven is that it's her supporter that started the movement/rumour.

Edit :

Wow it got pretty dirthy : http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/13/nation/na-clinton13

Her close circle suggested using obama "un-Americainess" against him.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Here it is, it's unproven (so false).

I disagree.
Unproven just means you lack evidence for or against. You should not stop fact-checking after an inconclusive result.

[Sheb]

Here it is, it's unproven (so false).

I disagree.
Unproven just means you lack evidence for or against. You should not stop fact-checking after an inconclusive result.

Except in this case, what could be evidence against? But still, I find the fact that Clinton refused to go along with the "un-American" angle quite telling. That's a couple order of magnitudes lower than claiming he wasn't born in the US. And she refused to go with it. Meanwhile, Trump continued beating the dead horse of Birtherism even after the long-form certificate was released.

[Starver]

What gets me, now that I've scanned further than today's headlines, is that this is news now (in this precise form, the first I've heard of it) yet it seems to have been resolved a full year ago, or more.

Right now, I'm wondering who is dragging what up and why. (Trump's side ressurecting old reliable smears; his opponents ressurecting the fact that he did smear). Confused by the irregular and obviously partisan treatments across the outlets, of course.

[Max™]

Here it is, it's unproven (so false).

I disagree.
Unproven just means you lack evidence for or against. You should not stop fact-checking after an inconclusive result.

The politifact site said it was rated as false, not just unproven, but when you have a supporter of someone come out and make a claim on their own, then the person being supported decry that claim, fact-checking further starts to head into witch-hunt territory pretty fast.

[Phmcw]

The rating false comes from that there are no proof or clues that Clinton did directly encourage it.
But she's a politician and she did use an emphasis on how American she was, in lieu of attacking Obama on foreignness directly.

Given the nature of the claim, it's false until proven true, but interesting that it came from her campaign.
It's also interesting to me that it got so much traction, though. I don't see how "he's born on a base so on American soil" make him a more suitable president than "he's born ten kilometer from the base". Ok, I get it, it's a technicality, but it's very petty.

[Reelya]

"Unproven" is too loaded: it implies that there is credible reason to think something might be true, if only we had that critical smoking gun.

"Unfounded" is a better term here, because there is literally no evidence that anyone in Clinton's organization ever promoted the birther thing.

[Sheb]

The rating false comes from that there are no proof or clues that Clinton did directly encourage it.
But she's a politician and she did use an emphasis on how American she was, in lieu of attacking Obama on foreignness directly.

Given the nature of the claim, it's false until proven true, but interesting that it came from her campaign.
It's also interesting to me that it got so much traction, though. I don't see how "he's born on a base so on American soil" make him a more suitable president than "he's born ten kilometer from the base". Ok, I get it, it's a technicality, but it's very petty.

Obama was born on Hawaii. That article linked also said she refused to go with the "I'm more American" memo.

[Reelya]

Given the nature of the claim, it's false until proven true, but interesting that it came from her campaign.

The first allegation came from a Clinton supporter. That's just an average Joe that happens to support Clinton, not someone working for the campaign. Later however, a campaign volunteer from Texas started the Birther thing. Note however, that this happened after Clinton conceded to Obama, not before.

So who exactly was this campaign volunteer? Linda Starr from Texas. But if you google around you discover that Linda Starr has a long history of being connected to bizarre conspiracy theories about major politicians, and to forged documents which support these theories. She's just one of those Texan conspiracy nuts, except she happened to support Clinton:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Where-s-Linda-Starr-the-Inventor-of-the-Birfer-Story/7665-4049

[Rolan7]

Democracy is a lie, even in America.
Everyone in America could want a change of pace and it wouldn't matter, we'd still get a another Rep or Dem figurehead.

Clinton won the primary because she got a majority of the votes.  Trump won the primary because he got a strong plurality of the votes and the republican nominations are less democratic by design.  The problem isn't democracy, the problem is that you are a minority.  So you are pissed off that the system is WAD.

...Nah, I'm not in a minority.  Most people are dissatisfied with our elected officials.  The system is broken in that it's all-or-nothing:  We either vote for one of the awful leaders who have a chance, or the vote is entirely wasted.

In a parliamentary system I would have an actual shot at helping a green candidate get elected.  That candidate's potential to join a coalition would make real, significant, proportional difference in the nation's government.  Or my candidate would lose, but at least I'd have a chance.

Whereas it's mostly pointless and largely dangerous to vote for a third-party candidate for President.  We're being blackmailed into participating in a farce, a mockery of actual choice.

I voted for Clinton, I think she'll be a more effective president than Sanders would have been.  But it was a shit choice to have to make, and the majority of people agree.  You're right that the system is working as designed, though.  It was never designed to let the common people choose their leaders.

[mainiac]

A majority voted Clinton. That is a simple fact.

That the minority is more whiney then usual is completely unrelated to that.  You just are anti democracy when you lose. Which is to say you are anti democracy because that is the only time it matters.

[Rolan7]

Uh, yeah.
And she could be literally nobody's first choice and still win.
If my highest priority is environmental protection, how does this system take that into account?  It doesn't.  O'Malley lost, never really had a chance, and that was that.  There's no incentive for Clinton to care about the environment, all she has to do is be less awful than Trump.

It's an illusion of representation.

Late edit regarding your late edit: wat
Democracy isn't perfect but I like it alright...  I'm saying our system of representation is pretty undemocratic, and also unrepresentative.
and I'm, like, in the biggest majority:  People who voted pragmatically.

[mainiac]

Well there is a candidate who will ensure the epa pushes it's carbon limit policies even farther and is a long time advocate of reducing children's exposure to toxins. But she doesn't push for a carbon tax which would have zero chance in Congress so fuck her right?

And honestly I think that if there was an unexpected Democratic wave that flips the house Clinton suddenly would be very interested in passing a carbon tax before the midterms.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, I'm sure any of that shit will materialize once she's elected, or if the way things are going.

All gonna fucking die in the climate crisis.