You demand A Safe Haven For POSITIVE People in your Trump thread to block any criticism of your hero, but then you come into the Hillary and post false crap like this. Hypocrite.
And for the record, Snopes debunked the claim that she said she will raise taxes on the middle class as it may have been an error in the audio, she didn't fully enunciate the ending of "aren't" or she simply misspoke:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-raise-taxes/
Social media users sharing this video offered it as evidence that Clinton had actually promised to raise taxes on "the middle class but not the rich," that she had changed her tax platform, and/or that she had let loose with a Freudian slip and accidentally revealed the truth of what she was really thinking.
Some viewers defended Clinton by saying that the clip had been edited, but it was not. The footage was taken from a speech Clinton delivered during a campaign stop in Omaha, Nebraska, on 1 August 2016: (video at link):
Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," but either she didn't fully enunciate the ending of the word "aren't" or the word didn't come through clearly on the audio recording (or both). Worst case, she simply misspoke and said "are" when she meant "aren't," because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy
Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of
UFOs in Haiti or the existence of
human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.
Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing
fake quotes and even
downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship.
She described herself as “
openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “
teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “
one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “
fear female agency.”
She
once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that
food stamp fraud does occur and
costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her
accusation.)
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.
After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that
looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “
we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but
offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status
didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who
admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”
In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled:
The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.
Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”
One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while
wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,”
wasn’t actually about income inequality.
Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
on TV.....never understood that ad. 
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
what other acceptable response is there in this situation?
