Didn't Obama claim all the Chemical weapons were removed from Syria?

[jem]

I did not believe any birther site or any internet birth certificate.
I always stated we don't know.
I predicted that if the case every get to court we would find out.

Obama defaulted in a Georgia court of law / administrative hearing rather than offer proof of where he was born.

Therefore you still don't have any proof that would hold up in court of where he was born.

And its not racist for me to say that because he Dad was not American and his mom traveled a lot.

And finally, we don't even have a Sup Ct decision defining natural born citizen. it is possible that if you only have one American parent... you are not a Natural Born citizen.

What I said above is legal fact. Everything else fake news.

here is my proof... regarding Obama not providing evidence of his birth when required by a court.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

Georgia[edit]
Several Georgian citizens (Carl Swensson and another Georgian represented by Georgia state representative Mark Hatfield, a Georgian represented by Taitz, and a Georgian represented by Van Irion) filed challenges with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, regarding Obama's inclusion on the March primary ballot.[130] Kemp referred the challenges to Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge, who denied Obama's motion to dismiss them and scheduled a hearing for January 26.[131]

On January 23, Malihi denied Obama's motion to quash a subpoena issued by Taitz to compel Obama to appear, saying that Obama did not show why he should not be at the hearing or how his testimony would not be helpful.[132] On January 25, Obama's attorney requested that Kemp halt the proceedings, and indicated that Obama would no longer participate in the litigation pending Kemp's decision.[133] Kemp denied their request and warned that their non-participation would be "at your own peril".[134]

Now... idiot Taitz decided to not take the default and put on meritless arguments so the court ruled against her. Which many would consider mal practice.

 

[Max E.]

This is the kind of bullshit that prove the fact checkers are a farce, the fact is clintons took money from the russians then she approved the deal. Period. It doesnt matter if other people were involved, they are trying to say its somehow irrelevant because other people got to vote.

It is a fact that the clintons took money from the russians, and then voted favourably for them on that deal, its irrelevant if she wasnt the swing vote.

These supposed fact checkers always try to split hairs when its favorable for liberals but wont give conservatives the same benefit of the doubt.

1.Again,9 agencies approved the sale.She wasnt even the head of the committee who makes the decision if the deal is approved

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/


The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.




2.Source?

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.






3.If Iran breaks the deal and makes nukes in 10 years it will be the 2027 President's job to stop them.Obama did his job,he prevented Iran from getting nukes on his watch.

 

[Max E.]

They rate this statement from Trump as straight up false, how could you not rate it atleast half true that sweden took in large numbers of immigrants and are having huge problems? Trump didnt even say anything happened in sweden, he just said look what happened in sweden last night so how do these jokers supposedly know his intent?

The prime minister of sweden has come out and said himself that they are done with mass immigration but supposedly trump was lying when he said they are having huge problems, lol.

Funny how conservatives never get the benefit of the doubt, especially given the fact that the very next day there was a fucking riot.

"Look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible."

 

[Max E.]

Another statement from Trump that is 100% True and politifact rates it half true cause the golf course he owns and operates won one of the awards, and he won the other one, its total bullshit the way they decide truth and half truth, the fact is he has won environmental awards both personally and through his business but politifact splits hairs to attempt to discredit him.

Look at the fucked up logic they have to take in order to rate this statement as only half true.


Trump: "I've won awards on environmental protection."

At a town hall with CEOs, President Donald Trump said his administration will be able to get rid of 90 to 95 percent of regulations "and still have the same kind of protection."

"We want safety and we want environmental protection," Trump said April 4. "I've won awards on environmental protection. I'm a big believer, believe it or not. But we want that kind of protection. We want clean air and we want clean water, but we shouldn’t have to get the approvals from 16 different agencies for almost the same thing."

Many readers asked us to look into Trump’s statement about his environmental awards.

It’s something he’s said before. At a 2015 campaign rally in Iowa, even as Trump scoffed at environmental regulations -- as in "a snail, or turtle or snake or something" that blocked projects -- he said his environmental bona fides were sound.

"I’m a big believer in clean air and clean water," he said Dec. 11, 2015. "I have gotten so many awards for the environment."

While Trump might have talked about "many awards" in Iowa, here, we’re simply looking for at least two. The White House pointed to the two it knows about.

A New Jersey golf course

In 2007, one of Trump’s golf courses got an award. The Metropolitan Golf Association gave its first annual environmental award to the Bedminster New Jersey Trump National Golf Course. How much credit did Trump get?

Some. The man who accepted the award on behalf of the golf course, Greg Nicoll, got his moment in the sun, too.

The association’s announcement said Nicoll "has been an environmental leader among Met Area clubs. Through the leadership of Donald J. Trump, Nicoll has implemented an environmental strategy that has resulted in the preservation of a dedicated 45 acre grassland bird habitat on the property, as well as intensive erosion control and stream stabilization management plan."

So it wasn’t a personal prize for Trump, but the golfing club certainly gave him a thumbs up.

Trump did get personal recognition in the second award on the White House’s list. (Hat tip to the Washington Post Fact-checker.)

Forest land in New York

It seems 2007 was a good year for Trump and the environment. That year, the Friends of Westchester County Parks gave Trump its inaugural Green Space Awardfor donating over 400 acres to the state park system. The group’s treasurer, Chris Frawley, said, "It is with heartfelt gratitude that we honor Mr. Trump for his vision and commitment to preservation of open space."

Interestingly, there’s a golf connection here, too, and a backstory of Trump’s experience with environmental permitting.

Trump had bought land in Yorktown, about 35 miles north of Manhattan, with plans to turn forest and meadows into a 155-acre golf course. He spent four years trying to win approval, but hit delays due mainly to wetlands on the property and its proximity to a drinking water reservoir. Golf courses use a bevy of chemicals to maintain the turf essential to the game.

Jim Tierney, an assistant state attorney general overseeing New York City's watershed, told the New York Times that Trump’s golf course in Yorktown would have been within a mile or so of the New Croton Reservoir, an unfiltered drinking water source for 900,000 city and county residents.

''Once something gets into the drinking water, it doesn't get filtered out,'' Tierney told the newspaper. ''It comes out of the faucet.''

In 2002, Trump pulled the plug on the project. In a letter announcing his decision, as reported by the New York Post, Trump told the Yorktown supervisor, "You have done a terrible disservice to your constituents who have sadly lost out on a tremendous opportunity."

The town said it was still working to resolve issues with Trump when he withdrew his plans. Trump saw it differently.

''I think the approval process in Westchester is even more difficult than the approval process in Manhattan,'' Trump told the New York Times. ''But in a perverse way, they've done me a favor because the land has gotten more valuable.''

Trump’s letter said he could make more money selling the land to home builders than developing it for golf. Ultimately, after a few years, he decided to donate the land. The state created the Donald J. Trump State Park, and Trump got his award.

There’s a coda to that: In 2010, budget cuts led the state to say it would no longer maintain the park lands. Trump said "If they’re going to close it, I’ll take the land back," according to news reports. He didn’t take further action.

It's worth noting that these two awards were not from major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club or the Environmental Defense Fund. They were from local groups for specific projects.

Our ruling

Trump said that he has won awards for environmental protection. The White House pointed to two that include his name. One thanked him personally for donating over 400 acres of undeveloped land to the New York State Park System. The other recognized the environmental stewardship of a Trump golf course in New Jersey operated by a well known manager, and cited Trump’s leadership in general terms.

So Trump can firmly claim one personal award and one where his role and the accorded honor are more diffuse.

By definition, two is plural, but the personal recognition of Trump is thin for the second one. We rate this claim Half True.

 

[Tony Stark]

the fact is clintons took money from the russians then she approved the deal. Period.

Thats not what jem said or implied that got this discussion started and why do conservatives not want all the facts known?

Lets connect the dots...


2. Clinton sold 20 percent of our Uranium to Russia for 150 million in bribes to her foundation.

When conservatives say stuff like that all the facts need to be told.

From jem and your statement that sounds like a bribe,but when all the facts are known most people would come to the conclusion that smart businessmen isn't going to give Hilliary a 150 million dollar bribe to approve something she doesn't even have the power to approve.

jems post also claimed Hillary sold 20 percent of our Uranium to Russia.That also is not true because the Uranium cant leave The US and Hillary didn't have the power to overrule that.

 

[Max E.]

When conservatives say stuff like that all the facts need to be told.

From jem and your statement that sounds like a bribe,but when all the facts are told most people would come to the conclusion that smart businessmen isn't going to give Hilliary a 150 million dollar bribe to approve something she doesn't even have the power to approve.

jem post also claimed Hillary sold 20 percent of our Uranium to Russia.That also is not true because the Uranium cant leave The US and Hillary didn't have the power to overrule that.

So then based on that logic, you cant say Bush invaded Iraq since infact it was congress who voted to invade Iraq, give me a break, Hillary was the secretary of state and the most influential person involved in the vote at the time, its true she couldnt unilaterally make the decision, but Bush didnt unilaterally make the decision to invade Iraq, so i guess snopes and politifact should rate the statement "Bush invaded Iraq" as a lie.

 

[Tony Stark]

Hillary was the secretary of state and the most influential person involved in the vote at the time

She wasn't even the head of the committee who made the decision,and that was just The Feds.Canada, Kazakhstan,an independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission and The State of Utah also had to approve.

 

[Max E.]

Politifact rated the statement "We removed 100% of the chemical weapons from Syria" as true until it blew up in their face, but anyone who is a lawyer would know that was a claim that is fucking impossible to prove, so how do they rate that true?

Its pretty funny that these are the people who will now be rating true or false on every single article on google.

 

[Max E.]

She wasn't even the head of the committee who made the decision,and that was just The Feds.Canada and The State of Utah also had to approve.

So who that made a vote was more influential, and more relevant than Hillary at the time? Do you think they just chucked their votes in a hat with no discussion? Who had the most pull on that comittee?

You are pretty much arguing that the CEO of a company is not responsible for its performance because board members also get a vote.

 

[Tony Stark]

Politifact rated the statement "We removed 100% of the chemical weapons from Syria" as true until it blew up in their face, but anyone who is a lawyer would know that was a claim that is fucking impossible to prove, so how do they rate that true?

Its pretty funny that these are the people who will now be rating true or false on every single article on google.

They rated that as MOSTLY true and they based that on 1300 tons of chemical weapons removed,conformation from a noble prize winning organization that deals with that stuff and other organizations that deal with chemical weapons.