Exactly. Like how they handled the issue of Hillary's health problems.

During the last presidential campaign, Hillary had some eye issues. But there was no way in hell Snopes was going to confirm Hillary had health problems. Not when she was running against literally Hitler.

So what they did is set up a false question so they could knock it down and paste a big fat FALSE on it. They framed the issue in the form of a question nobody was asking, namely:

> CLAIM: Hillary Clinton cancelled a campaign event because of "bizarre eye movements." (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-bizarre-eye-movements/)

But that's not what people were talking about. People were talking about her eye, and her health, IN GENERAL. People are saying she has serious, unspecified issues IN GENERAL and that it's completely obvious! But they have to get SPECIFIC with a fucking strawman in order to call it "FALSE".

PLUS, they had NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE. Just that they can't prove it.

> We found **no evidence** that Clinton suddenly cancelled her North Carolina campaign event over strange eye movements, nor did we find any evidence of anything wrong with her eyes in September 2016. While Clinton suffered a concussion in 2012, **there is no evidence** that she has been diagnosed with strabismus or any long-term eye anomaly as a result of it. Even if she did have strabismus, presence of the condition does not automatically imply poor health overall.

That does not make it FALSE! THat makes it 'INDETERMINED' which is a rating they actually use quite often.

Except when it comes to Hillary. They were SO in Hillary's corner, it was stomach churning. The site is completely worthless, and by this time has about the same level of credibility as Media Matters (namely, zero)

Well, yeah. Companies are created by and run by people, and as such, they reflect the tendencies of their creators.

Who do you know that never lies? That never has cheated at anything. Being outraged that companies reflect the people who created them is kind of silly. Homo sapiens is a flawed species in many ways, and his creations, as products of his mind, are going to reflect those flaws.

Compared to Patton Oswalt^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^... I mean Elena Kagan and the 'wise latina', Garland was practically a right winger.

The GOP didn't "roll the dice". They knew what was going to happen because Trump has a time machine

Well, you're never going to get them unless you log on.

> It is standard operating procedure to encourage continued funding.

Don't be saying that! Next thing you know, the conspiritards will say that climate change press releases are being hyped up in order to encourage funding!

That's almost as bad as this one, from "House"

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F... ... worst I've ever seen. Completely shameless.

In the USA, generally, hourly employees whose travel is required for the job must be paid for their travel time, with the exception of home to work (and work to home).

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/w...

No one is required to cast a vote for everything on the ballot. Not voting for a certain office/question/proposition/etc is called an "undervote". https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

> OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:

Scratch that. Looks like most states have restrictions.

OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:

http://www.anamericanvision.co...

Note that there are seven states which do not allow write-ins for president at all.

> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.

YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.

Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)

For voters who wish to cast their vote for candidates other than the ones printed on the ballot in San Francisco-- they need to know that they are still limited to a few official write-in candidate names if their vote is to be counted.

> you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.

I have no doubt you actually believe that horseshit. That statement makes some of the more hilarious proclaimations Christians are so fond of saying seem rational and reasonable in comparison.

I hear that. I have 1mb/s myself, although it is not shared. If I see one more nimrod here bitching about "ridiclously absurd upload speeds of 25mbs" or some such, I think I'm going to have to shoot somebody.

TFA article says nothing of the sort, actually. It's TF submitter. Slashdot, of course, simply copy-pastes anything Hugh says.