Says Donald Trump's position isto roll back all of the financial regulations passed after the financial crisis.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren did not leave her signature issue behind when she became presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trumps most pugnacious critic. Donald Trump has already offered his big wet kiss to Wall Street. He has said, Hey guys, if I get in, I'm going to roll back all of those regulations, because it makes it too hard for banks to cheat people,  Warren said in a June 28 interview onThe View. Trump never said he wanted to make it easier for banks to cheat people, but he has said he wants to roll back regulations on Wall Street. In the context of the interview, Warren is likely referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act, the premier piece of legislation regulating the banking industry after the crash. Warren has been a consistent crusader for stricter regulation of the financial industry. Early in the campaign, Trump distinguished himself from his rivals for the Republican nomination with some tough language directed toward Wall Street. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky, Trump said in aCBS interview in August. Atother points, he extended a similar critique to Wall Street Guys in general. Trump said that hedge fund managers get away with murder, but hes been unclear about what hed do to change that. One concrete Trump proposal on Wall Street was changes to the tax code that would change tax provisions benefitting hedge fund managers, but because of separate tax cuts for partnerships, his tax plan actually had the effect ofsubstantially improving their position. On Dodd-Frank, Trump has gone on the record again and again saying that the law is bad news for the economy and the banking industry. Hes called it a disaster, and a very negative force. Well before he launched his current presidential run, Trump attacked increased regulation after the financial crisis, which he said prevented loans to all but the very wealthy. And while it's not the same thing as a big wet kiss to Wall Street, Trump has said he expects bankers to appreciate his position. I think things have to be done with (Dodd-Frank), and I think Wall Street would like to hear that, Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. The only bit of wiggle room here is that Trump has been inconsistent about how much of Dodd-Frank would be left when he finished with it. He has said he would get rid of it, repeal it or, almost word-for-word from Warrens statement, roll that back. He has also said, however, that there are some aspects you could leave, and that could be changed greatly instead of being eliminated. In Trumps most recent statement about Dodd-Frank, in a mid May interview with Reuters, he said he would release a plan within two weeks that would be close to a dismantling of Dodd-Frank. A month after his Reuters interview, the plan, which would presumably settle this question, has not been released. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Our ruling Warren said Trump wants to roll back all of those regulations on Wall Street banks. While we dont know what Trumps plan would look like exactly, he certainly wants to scrap a lot of the law. It might not be right to say all of those regulations, but Trump himself has been unclear on that point. We rate this Mostly True.
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. In October 2016, an image appeared on social media accusing Indiana's governor (and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's running mate) Mike Pence of supporting "gay conversion" therapy, particularly the use of electric shocks as part of the practice:  The allegation dates back to 2000, when Pence was running for Congress. His campaign web site at the time touted his call to add a stipulation to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, a 1990 law providing funding for HIV/AIDS treatment for patients living with the disease lacking either the income or the necessary insurance to pay for it on their own: campaign HIV/AIDS treatment Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. Although he didn't say so outright, the position has been widely interpreted as signaling Pence's support for "gay conversion" therapy, which seeks to "cure" patients of being attracted to members of the same sex. According to the American Psychological Association, electric shocks were one of the techniques used to address homosexuality through "aversion therapy" prior to the group's decision in 1973 to stop classifying it as a mental disorder. By the time Pence made his statement regarding the Ryan White CARE Act, that group and several others, including the American Psychiatric Association, had rejected the practice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or repair homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of cures are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to changeindividuals sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm. The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. "Conversion therapy" has been banned by law in five states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont) as well as in Washington, D.C. We contacted Pence's office seeking comment on his stance regarding the issue but did not receive a response. Republicans were hit with a similar accusation in July 2016, when their national platform included the phrase "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children." accusation platform When asked whether that statement represented support for "conversion therapy," Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus replied that "It's not in the platform." replied An interesting and highly lucrative con targeting those attempting to sell vehicles (and other high-ticket items) online works like the highly successful Nigerian scam, but while his bit of larceny also typically features businessmen from Africa intent upon closing odd-sounding deals, it plays on the victims' honesty rather than their greed: Nigerian scam [Collected via Facebook, May 2015]There is a scam going around and I was almost a victim of it today. I recently posted an ad on Craig'slist I was contacted by a person that sent me a check for 1500.00 for the item I was selling. When I received the check today it was for the amount of 4000.00. When I asked why the check was for so much they informed me that the extra money was to be shipped via western union to the shipper so the item could be picked up and delivered. I got suspicious and took the check to my bank to make sure this check was ligit. I was informed that it was in fact a fake. The bank told me that if I had cashed this check that it would have come back to me and I would be responsible for the 4000.00 and they would have access to all my banking information. I am asking everyone to please like and share this post to make it go viral so this does not happen to you or anyone you know or any hard working Americans. Here is a picture of the check below. Please take the time to like and share. Lets get this thing viral. [Collected via e-mail, 2003] My husband is currently selling his motorcycle online. Last week when he posted his bike he recieved an email from a hotmail account stating he was interested in buying his bike and he is located in West Africa. He mentioned that he knows someone in the US that owes him money and would like to get our address to meet and make the exchange and that he would pay for all shipping charges. Well, a friend of ours, his cousin is also selling his bike. And he got the same email, but from a different email and name. That sounds funny to me. Well, my husband re-posted his bike yesterday online and he received from another person just about the same email about him residing in West Africa. The scam works like this: Example 1: Dr. Dipo Morgans of Nigeria wants to buy your used car for $5,000. His friend, Mr. Okuta, will be sending you a cashier's check for $8,000. You are to keep $5,000 for the car and send the remaining $3,000 to Dr. Morgans. Example 2: Dr. Dipo Morgans of Nigeria wants to buy your used car for $5,000. He will be sending you a cashier's check for $8,000 on the understanding that you will forward $3,000 of it to the shipping company that will be transporting your car to Africa. In some versions of the scam, the buyer is not an individual but rather an agent for a firm that purchases cars on behalf of others, often diplomats stationed in foreign lands. This car broker is usually located in Africa. The "reason" for the inflated-value check will vary from one attempt to defraud to another. Currency exchange problems will be cited. Or a horrified buyer will realize he's had the check prepared for far too large an amount. Or the check is being sent by a third party for the full amount this other person supposedly owes the buyer. Or it's a refund check for a failed sale for something that would have cost more. Or it would take 30 days to clear a check from Africa, hence the need to have an American third party send the payment. The reasons are many. And varied. And false. Cars or motorcycles aren't the only items to attract this form of scam: those attempting to sell horses have experienced it too. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate those attempting to sell boats will be similarly targeted. What matters is not the nature of the item being offered for sale but its price  it has to be high enough to justify the seller's feeling comfortable in sending thousands of his own dollars to a stranger under the mistaken belief he's already holding an even greater sum in his hand. In another form of the scam, those advertising online for roommates are contacted by prospective apartment-sharers who want to send cashier checks to cover the first few months rent plus a few thousand extra and who require the extra be mailed back to them. Though nothing is being offered for sale, it's the same scheme  the check will turn out to be worthless, but usually only long after the roommate-hunter has mailed his own very good check to the con artist. The scam works because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) requires banks to make money from cashier's, certified, or teller's checks available in one to five days. Consequently, funds from checks that might not be good are often released into payees' accounts long before the checks have been honored by their issuing banks. High quality forgeries can be bounced back and forth between banks for weeks before anyone catches on to their being worthless, by which time victims have long since wired the "overpayments" to the con artists who have just taken them for a ride. Although this scam is in its infancy, real people have already been bilked out of thousands of dollars by it  in some cases tens of thousands. The con has claimed victims in communities across the USA, so don't let your not having heard about it before lull you into a false sense of security. That the game is new doesn't mean it's not dangerous. How to Avoid Falling Victim to Cashier's Check Scams: Additional information:   Espinoza, Richard and Dan Morgolies. "Latest Net Scam Preys on Honest Folks."
  Charleston Gazette.  1 June 2003  (p. D7). Flaum, David.  "Scam Hits Sellers Over Net."
  The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  2 March 2003  (p. G1). Jones, Matthew.  "Beach Police Officers Warn of Fake-Check Web Scam."
  The Virginian-Pilot.  9 January 2003  (p. B4). Kades, Deborah.  "Wisconsin Residents Fall Prey to Used Vehicle, Lottery Scams."
  The Wisconsin State Journal.  12 December 2002. Kristof, Kathy M.  "Nigerian Money Con Targets Small Firms."
  Los Angeles Times.  7 September 2003 (p. C3). Associated Press.
  "Missoula Credit Union Members Taken."  15 March 2003. Just when we thought we'd had our fill of debate-related conspiracies, a new one came along, this one in the form of a video purportedly documenting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt had colluded to rig the first presidential debate through a system of secret hand signals: Scratching ones face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer theyd be investigated.  When the alt-right web site True Pundit shared the video, they did so along with the additional claim that Clinton had never made similar gestures in previous debates, campaign appearances, or speeches: Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clintons speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.) The above-displayed video does not provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt communicated via hand signals so that Clinton could indicate to Holt when she wanted him to call on her so she could get in a "zinger." The creator of the video simply strung together several unrelated events  Clinton scratching her face, Holt making a comment, Clinton replying to Trump  and then claimed that they were somehow connected to a furtive signaling plot without providing any proof. But before we dig deeper into the video, let's look at the accompanying claims about it from True Pundit and Infowars. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate:  Clinton touched her face during speech   It should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not the only one making these gestures during the first presidential debate:   It should also be noted that (as shown in the image at the head of this page) the two candidates were physically separated on the stage, and therefore in order to catch the supposed "signals" from Hillary Clinton, moderator Lester Holt  who didn't have the advantage of the split-screen shot presented to television viewers  would had to have been rather obviously watching her even when she was not speaking. If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected: strategy The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade. defenses of his anatomy But it didnt take long for Mrs. Clinton to find the other Mr. Trump under that thin second skin. Her needling began immediately. She referred to her opponent as Donald, where he pointedly called her Secretary Clinton. (Yes, is that O.K.? he asked at his first reference to her.) She referred to his starting a business with a $14 million loan from his father, which Mr. Trump preferred to call a very small loan. The digs targeted Mr. Trumps status and founding mythos, triggering his image-protection reflex. He became combative and rattled, letting his opponent lead him down rhetorical detours (at one point he revived an old feud with Rosie ODonnell) knowing that he would follow his ingrained ABCs: always be counterpunching. It was Tony Soprano vs. Dr. Melfi, TVs biggest antihero blustering against the woman who had gotten inside his head. This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator  as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often. three times In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In late November 2020, social media users called attention to the number of Twitter accounts following U.S. President Donald Trump after his reelection loss to Joe Biden. Donald Trump Joe Biden One such tweet (displayed below) alleged the sitting president had lost followers "for the first time" and included a chart supposedly depicting that trend. such tweet  The underlying assertion  that Trump's account saw an unusual decline in followers after the election  is true; however, it is false to say the follower count had never dipped at all before, or that the number only increased or remained stagnant until late November 2020. Firstly, the number of Twitter accounts following @realDonaldTrump overall increased during Trump's presidency. Snopes created the below-displayed visualization of the trend based on follower analytics by Factba.se, a database of the president's public statements that uses automated software and archived screenshots to measure his accounts follower count over time. @realDonaldTrump Factba.se   Next, let us unpack the claim. Socialbakers, a software company that compiles social media analytics, apparently created the tweet's data visualization. The graph measured @realDonaldTrump's millions of Twitter followers between Nov. 16 and Nov. 23, when the account was a leading tool for the president's misinformation campaign to try to lower Americans' trust in the 2020 election as states certified election results in Biden's favor. @realDonaldTrump president's misinformation campaign states certified election results The graph depicted a steady decrease in followers over that time period, going from about 88.95 million followers to 88.90 million followers. Below is another visualization of the account's growth or decline in followers via Socialbakers over a longer time frame, between Election Day on Nov. 3 and Nov. 29.   Those numbers were indeed accurate estimations, according to Factba.se. Factba.se In other words, it is accurate to state that the president's follower account was decreasing from one day to the next in late November 2020. Per Factba.se, the president recorded an all-time peak follower count  88,964,791  on Nov. 17. Then, the following day, that total dropped by more than 18,900 accounts, and a daily decline continued with no sign of changing course as of this writing on Nov. 30. By that point, the president had lost almost 140,000 followers since the high point roughly two weeks earlier. (See the slight declines each day via Factba.se data below.)   That type of consecutive daily decline over the course of almost two weeks had not happened since the start of Trump's presidency in January 2017, per Factba.se's data.   However, it was false to claim that Trump's follower count had never before decreased. Between Jan. 20, 2017  the day of Trump's inauguration  and Nov. 17, 2020, Trump lost followers from one day to the next on numerous occasions, per the database. The net losses, which ranged in size, were documented on the following dates: June 15, 2017; June 29, 2017; July 13, 2017; Jan. 30, 2018; Feb. 2, 2018; May 25, 2018; June 9, 2018; June 28, 2018; July 12, 2018; July 18, 2018; July 19, 2018; Oct. 23, 2018; Oct. 24, 2018; Nov 4, 2018; Nov. 5, 2018; Nov. 9, 2018; Nov. 29, 2018; Dec. 7, 2018; April 24, 2019; Nov. 29, 2019; Jan. 29, 2020; Oct. 31, 2020; Nov. 9, 2020; Nov. 14, 2020, and Nov. 15, 2020. In other words, in four instances  July 2018, October 2018, November 2018, and mid-November 2020  Trump's Twitter account measured a follower count less than the day prior two days in a row. But in all of those cases, on the third day, the quick trend reversed and showed a net gain. That was not the case in late November 2020, when, as of this writing, the account tallied 13 days of consecutive net losses. We should note here: the data showed the total number of accounts following the president, no matter if they were associated with particular individuals, companies, organizations, or bots. The latter are run by programs attempting to spread content on social media without human involvement. Factba.se tweeted the following: tweeted   "We don't analyze for bot behavior," the tweet said. However, "small drops daily"  like what the president's account measured in late November  were not typically the result of bots removing themselves from accounts, per Factba.se's analysis. In sum, it was true in November 2020 that Trump was losing Twitter followers from one day to the next over almost two weeks  something that had not happened since the start of his presidency. However, it was false to say his follower account declined "for the first time." On numerous occasions, he lost followers from one day to the next. For those reasons, we rate this claim a mixture of truth and falsehood. In May 2022, we received inquiries from our readers that asked if an email message from the "Jeff Green Foundation" was legitimate. According to the email, a philanthropist named Jeff Green had decided to give away $1 million each to 20 different lucky recipients. However, this had all the signs of a classic email scam. Jeff Green scam According to a screenshot captured by a reader, the email appeared like this:  We transcribed the scam email below: scam From: Jeff Green Foundation Subject: My philanthropy! To: YOU Reply-To: privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu Greetings to you and your family. In a thousand years, I never thought I would do something like this. My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do. https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ When I was 17, I met a homeless man named James in Five Points, Denver, Colorado. I spent hours listening to him, his stories, and the twists and turns of choice and fate that led him to a life on the streets. His journey deeply affected me, and I found myself dwelling on it a great deal over the following months, unable to shake one core question that was taking root in my mind - Why is he out here on the streets in the December cold while I am living a more comfortable life? I think this adage is generally true: luck is preparation meeting opportunity. But I also understand that many people experience major life events that obstruct their preparation and as a result, opportunity passes them by. I also believe that we all encounter people who can propel us forward or hold us back. No one gets to their situation in life alone, good or bad. I didn't get to this statistically outlying position alone, and neither did James. Money cannot buy happiness. Money can buy things that make life more enjoyable. But those things and that enjoyment are always fleeting. When you think about the problems you face in life, the accumulation of things is rarely the solution. My philanthropy is not about politics or handouts - it is about getting the best outcomes for all the potential talent, which can only benefit our nation, and humankind. It will help people step up to opportunity, not lay back. I will give away the vast majority of my wealth through data-driven philanthropy before or at my death. My target is more than 90 percent of my wealth. But I will also give of my time, my most precious commodity, to allocate those funds deliberately, and to be personally engaged. So I decided I was going to contact 20 people via their email address which I paid for from a Data Firm. If you receive this email, I am giving you $1 Million. Thinking about it again, I must be crazy to do something like this but crazy is what made me who I am today so lets go for it! All you have to do is reply to this email with your full names and you will be paid $1 Million. My Life's Mission is to deploy capital against humanity's toughest problems. Jeff Green. A search of Twitter showed that several users were curious whether the "Jeff Green Foundation" email was legitimate: Twitter    We didn't find any similar messages available on Facebook, but it's likely that some users were discussing the email in private posts only visible to friends. Facebook Some of the paragraphs in the "Jeff Green Foundation" email scam were copied and pasted from the text of a genuine letter written by a real philanthropist named Jeff T. Green. In November 2021, Green truly did pledge to try to give away "more than 90 percent" of his billions in wealth. scam a genuine letter billions However, there's no indication that Green or his foundation had anything to do with the email scam. scam We quickly noticed several issues with the "Jeff Green Foundation" message. Before the email got into the "when I was 17" story from the genuine letter, several words were either capitalized or not capitalized that should have been the reverse. For example, one usage of the word "I" was left to be lowercase as "i" in the same sentence as an oddly-placed comma: "My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do." Additionally, the sentence was poorly worded. The message also asked recipients to respond to privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu. The idea that a billionaire philanthropist would publish an email with such poor grammar and, at the same time, ask people to respond to a fairly generic Hungarian email address, did not scream "legitimate." We reached out to a company associated with Green to see if they had been alerted to the scam that used his name. We will update this story if we receive a statement. scam In sum, no, the "Jeff Green Foundation" emails that promised $1 million each to 20 different people was not a legitimate giveaway. Jeff T. Green. The Giving Pledge, https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=430. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. Richest Utah Native Vows to Give Away 90% of His Billions. The Salt Lake Tribune, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/. Swant, Marty. Billionaire Jeff T. Green, Founder Of The Trade Desk, Joins The Giving Pledge. Forbes, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2021/11/16/the-trade-desk-founder-jeff-green-joins-list-of-billionaires-to-sign-the-giving-pledge/. Tavss, Jeff. Billionaire Utahn to Give Away 90% of His Wealth. KSTU, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth. In November 2019, an old clip from the children's popular show "Sesame Street" started to go viral on Twitter. The clip, which was viewed more than 8 million times in a few days, showed a child named "John-John" counting to 10 with a muppet in 1971, and then showed John-John's return to "Sesame Street" about 20 years later: One of my favorite @sesamestreet moments of all time... pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb @sesamestreet pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb  ?Kristina A. Holzweiss #HackingSchoolLibraries (@lieberrian) November 21, 2019 November 21, 2019 While many viewers were delighted that John-John appeared to have grown into an upstanding citizen and member of the U.S. Air Force, others claimed there was a bit more to the story: Many Twitter users pointed to a 2015 article published on I Love Old School Music as evidence that he'd been in trouble with the law. Here's an excerpt from that article, as well as a mugshot of a man named "John Bernard Williams": I Love Old School Music ... John ended up getting convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child in the state of Texas... ... Texas Department Of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry Records reveal that John sexually assaulted a 4 year old female child and that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, was released on parole and is now under a lifetime mandatory supervision by the state of Texas.   A man named John Bernard Williams truly is on the Texas Public Sex Offender registry. We also found that much of the known biographical information for "John-John" matched with the information of this offender from the Texas Department of Public Safety. the Texas Public Sex Offender For instance, a profile on "Airman John-John" published by the Air Force Service Information and News Center in 1989 identified him as "John Bernard Williams." That article also identified his mother by the first name of "Trina." This is also the name of convicted sex offender John Bernard Williams' mother, according to a 2000 opinion on Williams' court case. Air Force Service Information and News Center 2000 opinion We also know that John-John was born in 1969 because many news outlets reported that the viral "Sesame Street" counting clip was filmed in 1971 when he was just 2 years old. The Muppet Fandom Wiki provides a more specific date of birth for John-John (Sept. 24, 1969), but we have been unable to verify this information. If this information is accurate, though, John-John and John Bernard Williams share the exact same birth date. If it's inaccurate, we still know that they were born in the same year. reported Muppet Fandom Wiki Lastly, in 1998, The New York Times caught up with John-John for the 30th anniversary of "Sesame Street." That article noted that John-John was living in San Antonio, Texas. A year later, charges would be filed against a man named John Bernard Williams in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located, for the sexual assault of a child. San Antonio, Texas. The information we've gathered seems to show that John-John, the 2-year-old child who made multiple appearances on "Sesame Street," may be the same person who ended up on the offender list in Texas. However, it is possible that this is just a coincidence. Given the nature of the rumor, and the fact that we have been unable to definitively tie these two identities together (via family statements, social security numbers, fingerprints, etc.) we are rating this claim "Unproven." We've reached out to the Texas Department Of Public Safety and will update this article if more information becomes available. Ramos, Cindy.  "Grover San Antonian's 14 Years on 'Sesame Street' Influenced His Life."   San Antonio Express-News.  12 May 1998. Sutherland, Anna.  "Airman John-John."   Air Force Service Information and News Center.  1989. Martin, Brett.  "TELEVISION; Still a Bilingual Guy, But Without Muppets."   New York Times.  29 March 1998. iloveoldschoolmusic.com.  "Man Who Played Sesame Street Kid 'John John' Was Convicted Of Heartbreaking Crime Against Child."   22 October 2015. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 11, 2020, a Twitter user posted a new permutation of a conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems, the technology firm that provided voting systems in multiple U.S. jurisdictions in the November 2020 election, and which has also been the target of a disinformation campaign falsely claiming its systems were used to perpetrate widespread voter fraud. technology firm falsely claiming One of the narratives in the election fraud conspiracy theory holds that voting machines provided by Dominion switched votes from ballots cast for U.S. President Donald Trump to his challenger, Joe Biden, who is now president-elect. Trump has refused to accept his electoral loss, and has perpetuated the lie that Dominion machines were used en masse to flip votes. perpetuated Hence, more than a month after Biden was declared winner of the election, conspiracy theories continued to flourish. In this case, a Twitter user falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by a member of Biden family, namely his nephew. But the tweet in question is nothing but a patchwork of misleading screenshots and assumptions, based on people sharing a common surname. We cropped the user's name out below: falsely claimed   The screenshots in the meme above contain what appear to be the professional biographies of two men, Stephen Owens and R. Kevin Owens, neither of which mentions Dominion. The meme included in the tweet points to President-elect Biden's sister and campaign manager Valerie Biden Owens, with the alleged clincher being that Stephen Owens, a co-founder of Staple Street Capital, an investment firm that owns 75% stake in Dominion, shares a surname. However, "Owens" is a common last name, so that hardly serves as proof at all. co-founder owns Valerie and her husband, John T. Owens, have three children, none named Stephen. A spokesperson for Staple Street confirmed in an email to Snopes that Stephen Owens has no relation to the Biden family. three children And although the meme includes mention of R. Kevin Owens, an attorney who is related to Valerie's husband, we see no connection between this person and Dominion. related In other iterations of this conspiracy theory, the voting systems company has been falsely linked to deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as various Democratic politicians, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the Clinton Foundation, the charitable foundation run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hugo Chavez including Trump's own administration has undermined his post-election disinformation blitz by stating the November 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." undermined "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a Nov. 12, 2020, statement. statement Updated to note that a Staples Street representative confirmed Stephen Owens isn't related to the Bidens. Entertainment web site World News Daily Report has put out more than its fair share of fake news articles over the years. Although its stories touch on a variety of topics, the web site frequently focuses on genitalia-based horror, publishing dubious stories about a babysitter inserting a baby into her vagina, a woman training squirrels to attack her boyfriend's testicles, and a man who was castrated after attempting to have sex with a pit bull terrier. fake news babysitter training castrated The site added another article to this category on 14 September 2017, when it published a story reporting that a couple had been hospitalized after a man got his head stuck in his wife's vagina: published   A couple was transported to the hospital in a very awkward position last night after a man somehow got his head stuck in his wifes vagina during a strange sexual game. Tom and Janis Morrison, a young couple from the small town of Greensboro in Alabama, called 911 around 10:00 pm last night to ask for an ambulance. There is, as usual, no truth to this story; as explained, WNDR is a well-known fake news site with a long history of publishing hoaxes. A disclaimer on the web site reads: fake news World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website  even those based on real people  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle. The article about a man getting his head stuck in his wife's vagina was reproduced by several lesser known (but equally disreputable) web sites, such as Pagez.com, which do not carry readily available disclaimers. As a result, some readers mistook this article as a genuine news item.  Pagez.com mistook