The US Election 2016, Part V

[Gromnir]

 

 

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them.

 

 

And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. 

 

Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

 

am not sure if we can describe politifact as having a methodology. it is pretty darn subjective.  difference 'tween placement o' a claim in one o' two categories is gonna be the result o' a fuzzy kinda internal calculus rather than anything that can be objective discerned.  more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all.  

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire

 

trump simple talks out his arse, so is unsurprising when his claims is rated as false, but there has been more than a few liberal political leaders that would appear to get benefit o' the doubt that conservatives do not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is worth noting that the washington post fact checker, a source also accused o' liberal bias, notes that their earned pinocchio tally is close to even as 'tween dems and pubs.  

Edited August 22, 2016 by Gromnir

[Leferd]

 

 

 

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them.

 

 

And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. 

 

Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

 

am not sure if we can describe politifact as having a methodology. it is pretty darn subjective.  difference 'tween placement o' a claim in one o' two categories is gonna be the result o' a fuzzy kinda internal calculus rather than anything that can be objective discerned.  more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all.  

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire

 

trump simple talks out his arse, so is unsurprising when his claims is rated as false, but there has been more than a few liberal political leaders that would appear to get benefit o' the doubt that conservatives do not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

"more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all."

 

Ok, that's a fair critique and I recognize it.

 

Nevertheless, Politifact, is transparent and specifically addresses these concerns of what claims are chosen and how they measure truthiness on their processes page. Do they target more Republican statements than Democrats? That NPR interview asserts it, and I have no reason to believe it to be false.

 

But, short of a GAO audit, these online fact checkers are the best we have to gauge aggregate candidate truthiness at the moment.

[Longknife]

This is what I really wanna know:

 

Why are so many of you quick to point at Trump and say "btw he's dumb," but so reluctant to scrutinize Hillary? Every day I check newsfeeds, this thread, forums, polls, you name it, and it's always the same: "Trump drowned a kitten today." Ok, cool. As I've come to expect from him at this point.....But Clinton's over there kicking a puppy. Why are we not talking about her kicking puppies? That drowning kittens is worse than kicking puppies is irrelevant to me, because both of those acts are so abhorrent I'd never support either. Most people will point out that drowning kittens is worse though, thus news media cameras are pointed at Trump 24/7 so we can all get live feeds as he drowns kitten after kitten, but no one - and I mean practically NO ONE in the grand scheme of things - is keeping an eye on Clinton.

 

Let's assume that nothing outrageous will happen between then and now (such as wikileaks dropping a bomb) and that Clinton will win the election. Isn't it more vital to educate ourselves on the faults of our would-be president, not focus on the faults of the loser? Calling Trump an idiot is beating a dead horse at this point, but we still have plenty we could look into regarding what Clinton is doing with various suspect acts and organizations. We're essentially putting the fox in charge of the hen house while we all marvel at how ridiculous Trump is, and it boggles my mind that people continue to do this knowing what we know now about the DNC corruption.

 

Several threads ago, I posted "who are you guys voting for, idiot or criminal?" Here I stand months (?) later and the discussion continues to be "hey look how many crayons idiot can fit up his nose" while no one bothers checking in with criminal to see if she's still wearing her prisoner collar or if she's gotten it off and jumped the fence, and no one bothers remembering if they locked their doors and installed their security alarms before coming to watch the latest idiot show.

[Leferd]

Dude, stop hyperventilating. Seeing as I'm for all intents and purposes the only one participating in this thread likely to be voting for Clinton anyway.

 

Aside from Bruce, everyone here has pretty much been quick to go Hillary-bashing.

[Meshugger]

Reality is objectively liberal and being right is just an opinion of it. For example we all like to help one another and give little extra to those in need, right? That's why we have taxes, that's a fact. But why are the right-wingers saying that we should lower taxes then? It's an opinion and it is a false one too. Check-mate, republicans :^)

 

As for investigative journalism, i would like to point out that it is not only the quality of judgement by the reporting which counts, but also what is chosen to be investigated in the first place. I could respect someone trying to investigate Trump's tax returns (as Wikileaks admitted they are trying to probe for a leak, but so far proven to be difficult) or his possible connection to mafia as that could be detriment to his campaign. What i do not respect is willfully ignoring/downplaying anything significant while making headlines about his opinion about fat women, babies or trying to create narratives of your own.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Meshugger

[Longknife]

Dude, stop hyperventilating.

 

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question.

[Leferd]

 

Dude, stop hyperventilating.

 

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question.

Didn't you say you've been banned at a few other message boards? Perhaps it's the way you write and the tone you give off seems emotionally charged to the reader?

 

*Edit*

 

LK,

 

My apologies, I may have projected. It's been a long day --woke up early to catch the start of the marathon.

 

Going back to your question, I'm with her and Hillary Clinton is getting scrutinized just fine in these here message boards =)

Edited August 22, 2016 by Leferd

[BruceVC]

 

 

Dude, stop hyperventilating.

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question.

Didn't you say you've been banned at a few other message boards? Perhaps it's the way you write and the tone you give off seems emotionally charged to the reader?

 

*Edit*

 

LK,

 

My apologies, I may have projected. It's been a long day --woke up early to catch the start of the marathon.

 

Going back to your question, I'm with her and Hillary Clinton is getting scrutinized just fine in these here message boards =)

 

LK, why would you assume Hilary supporters  like me arent well aware of her good and bad?

 

Also you own assessments of Hilary have been consistently wrong so maybe if you made some reasonable comments that were true about her people would care when you ask questions like " so reluctant to scrutinize Hillary? " 

[Zoraptor]

 

Dude, stop hyperventilating.

 

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question.

 

 

It's because you do seem overwrought- it's not like the forums have been overrun with Correct the Record folks, they're far too busy shilling on reddit/ facebook for that. Your post would make far more sense elsewhere than here where you are largely preaching to the choir since neither candidate is popular.

 

(Trump also is doing at least a good impression of an idiot, Hillary is basically sitting tight waiting for him to self destruct. There's currently a lot less to actually discuss about her, either positive or negative)

[ShadySands]

Here you go LK

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2016/08/21/wolff-media-turn-clinton/88994428/&zdxw=1

[redneckdevil]

https://youtu.be/5i4tuuy1jsw

[Gromnir]

https://youtu.be/5i4tuuy1jsw

gotta pay closer attention to dates. video is posted 2014. the following is an article from 2016.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-turn-on-trey-gowdy/2016/06/29/7c513ed4-3e44-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?utm_term=.93a2476ee55e

 

HA! Good Fun!

[redneckdevil]

 

 

https://youtu.be/5i4tuuy1jsw

gotta pay closer attention to dates. video is posted 2014. the following is an article from 2016.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-turn-on-trey-gowdy/2016/06/29/7c513ed4-3e44-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?utm_term=.93a2476ee55e

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sigh that I do lol. I was trying to read the report but didn't get thru it very far. Worked 7 days straight and off tomorrow so I'm putting it off for a bit. From what I read, they still don't have answers and was complaining that certain things are being withheld even though they went thru a way that by law they supposed to but then turns around and says they have a lot of info they couldn't get through congress. It was a it confusing and didn't seem to have any answers. Lots of complaining bout cooperation.

But ty, ur right and didn't know the report was out yet.

[Leferd]

Trump on Bill O'Reilly tonight. 

 

Ridiculous. Either Mr. Trump is promoting the suspension of the 4th Amendment and due process or he really has no clue and plan and is the type to let a thug go play Dirty Harry and let the powder keg go off. Probably both.





https://youtu.be/hBrhsv2KWI4?t=240

Edited August 23, 2016 by Leferd

[BruceVC]

Trump on Bill O'Reilly tonight.

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/hBrhsv2KWI4?t=240

 

Ridiculous. Either Mr. Trump is promoting the suspension of the 4th Amendment and probable cause or he really has no clue and plan and is the type to let a thug go play Dirty Harry and let the powder keg go off. Probably both.

Dont  make the grave mistake of assuming Trump actually understands the consequences  of his words

 

Never give him the credit of having to actually be aware of the possible consequences of what he says.....his supporters believe anything he says and will just make excuses for these types of controversies so he doesnt care 

[Volourn]

I dunno... but when 5 cops are murdered in cold blood, when a black lady is shot by the same shooter while white offciers step in and save her, when people are rioting about perceived racism and demanding white people and cops  get killed after a  black cop kills someone... I believe the powder keg has already gone off.

[Namutree]

I dunno... but when 5 cops are murdered in cold blood, when a black lady is shot by the same shooter while white offciers step in and save her, when people are rioting about perceived racism and demanding white people and cops  get killed after a  black cop kills someone... I believe the powder keg has already gone off.

Regardless of whether or not the powder keg has gone off; Trump was being a buffoon. 

[Gromnir]

Trump on Bill O'Reilly tonight. 

 

Ridiculous. Either Mr. Trump is promoting the suspension of the 4th Amendment and due process or he really has no clue and plan and is the type to let a thug go play Dirty Harry and let the powder keg go off. Probably both.

 

(image)

 

https://youtu.be/hBrhsv2KWI4?t=240

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88086-us-election-2016-part-iii/?p=1828131

 

either trump has no basic understanding o' the powers o' the Executive, or he is counting on the ignorance o' the American public regarding the fundamentals o' the federal government.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

I dunno... but when 5 cops are murdered in cold blood, when a black lady is shot by the same shooter while white offciers step in and save her, when people are rioting about perceived racism and demanding white people and cops  get killed after a  black cop kills someone... I believe the powder keg has already gone off.

And if those things you mentioned are real I might entertain the notion.....but Volo lets be honest, I lived through Apartheid, I would assume you would trust my judgement on what is racism and what is not 

 

BLM doesnt want to kill policeman or white people 

[HoonDing]

Trump will appoint 20 tough men. Sounds like a good plan.

[Meshugger]

People want to hear about a strong arm rolling down the thunder in a city of 466 murders so far this year and Trump delivers with speeches like that. Talks about "youth delinquency", "marginalization" or "structural challenges" usually go to deaf ears in situations like that, all while Trump conveys the following image:

 

 

Will people love it? I think that they will.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

People want to hear about a strong arm rolling down the thunder in a city of 466 murders so far this year and Trump delivers with speeches like that. Talks about "youth delinquency", "marginalization" or "structural challenges" usually go to deaf ears in situations like that, all while Trump conveys the following image:

 

 

Will people love it? I think that they will.

Meshugger what is your opinion on Trump, your view is unclear and vague 

 

Do you support him or not?

[Meshugger]

 

People want to hear about a strong arm rolling down the thunder in a city of 466 murders so far this year and Trump delivers with speeches like that. Talks about "youth delinquency", "marginalization" or "structural challenges" usually go to deaf ears in situations like that, all while Trump conveys the following image:

 

 

Will people love it? I think that they will.

Meshugger what is your opinion on Trump, your view is unclear and vague 

 

Do you support him or not?

 

 

I admire leaders long dead and gone, like Marcus Aurelius and Gaius Octavius Augustus. Trump is a mere echo of the virtues extoled from old, like there's an ascetism found in him in terms of alcohol, tobacco and other indulgences and some sense of "gravitas" and industriousness, but at the same time a lack of other virtues such as sterness and frugalness. In a world where truthfulness is not expected of the political class or anyone else, one cannot help to laugh how he plays the game with a glimmer in his eye.

 

Clinton reminds me Konstantin Chernenko, an empty husk of platitudes, barely sustained by the apparatnik.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Meshugger

[Longknife]

 

 

Dude, stop hyperventilating.

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question.

Didn't you say you've been banned at a few other message boards? Perhaps it's the way you write and the tone you give off seems emotionally charged to the reader?

 

 

Yes, all from the same community and though I didn't post it here, I recently discovered it was indeed for what I suspected: writing a critique that made a corrupt mod buttmad enough to permaban. I think it'd be better to point out how that concrete post I made expressed stress or hostility rather than to reference some event that, quite frankly, you cannot know much about.

 

My end point would be more why do you support her? With all due respect, 99% of your posts are either saying "Trump did a thing" or "Clinton is leading in this new poll." The first does not absolve Clinton of problems, the second is...well, quite frankly I find it rather pointless beyond maybe one statement of "polls from here on out are notoriously more accurate and a recent poll shows Clinton winning, so expect that."

 

I consider it a common flaw amongst people to lack any self-reflection and self-criticism, and in an election where both candidates are wildly unpopular, I find it fascinating that STILL, both Trump and Hillary supporters are STILL eagerly "defending" their candidate in that they only point the finger at the other candidate. No one talks about redeeming qualities of either, yet they'll gladly voice rather vocal support for one or the other. If you truly believe Hillary will win, is it not more productive to focus on her faults? I mean for example TPP is rather unpopular. If people bit down on TPP and expressed disdain for it while still supporting Clinton, this can at the very least hold her feet to the fire and make her promise to avoid it, which if she lied about during her presidency, would undoubtedly garner more attention. Instead even now, I watch as the supporters seem to just turn a blind eye to any problems or controversies, and that really boggles my mind.

 

 

LK, why would you assume Hilary supporters  like me arent well aware of her good and bad?

 

Gee Bruce you're right. What the hell possessed me to believe you'd be unaware of her flaws? You're always on top of things and up to date with all the latest news and politics and you're always really neutral and non-bias about it too. My mistake.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Longknife

[aluminiumtrioxid]

there's (...) some sense of "gravitas" (about Trump)

 

Sure there is, buddy. Sure there is.