American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[frankenstein12]

longblackcoat said:

frankenstein12 said:

Generally I cannot see any point in engaging with you and others on this thread about your posts but this is deeply ironic.

You think HE his grasp of international diplomacy is non existent when we have Hillary Clinton. Hilarious. One of the core reasons a lot of people are arguing in favour of Trump over Clinton is specifically due to her complete PROVEN repeated incompetence in international diplomacy and affairs.

While I realise that to the posters on here who are anti Trump the fact that Putin and North Korea have said they have time for and would be willing to engage in discussion with Trump but have no interest in talking to any other president or potential president shows he is one and the same or their puppet, personally i think it shows that at least they are willing to engage with him whereas they deeply dislike and distrust Clinton.

Very few politicians or political leaders globally have any time, respect or trust at all for or in Hillary Clinton. Clinton in the Whitehouse is and will be a total disaster.

I would rather the US had a president who could engage in discussion with Russia than a president who wants to start a war with them.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to present facts, or at least strong evidence to back your stance. And posting unsupported assertions as fact is never going to get anyone on your side.

As an example: "Very few politicians or political leaders globally have any time, respect or trust at all for or in Hillary Clinton."

Other than quoting Trump/Alex Jones/Ann Coulter, where's your evidence for this?

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years...

Pew Global Research (non-profit, non-partisan) seem to think otherwise. Clinton is not as well-regarded as Obama, certainly, but there's a very long step from there to your statement.

Here's an article showing what a selection of world leaders think of Trump. I admit that it's not as good as the Pew piece, and that (OMG!) it's produced by the Mainsteam Lying Media (double OMG!!!) but it gives an idea.

http://fortune.com/2016/02/24/donald-trump-nevada-...

Go on, find me something even vaguely authoritative that supports your assertion that Clinton's deeply unpopular with world leaders (other than Putin, Assad and Kim Jong Un).

You are right. I should have written "I believe very few politicians or political leaders globally have any time, respect or trust at all for or in Hillary Clinton regardless of their public statements regarding her versus Trump"

[turbobloke]

longblackcoat said:

frankenstein12 said:

Generally I cannot see any point in engaging with you and others on this thread about your posts but this is deeply ironic.

You think HE his grasp of international diplomacy is non existent when we have Hillary Clinton. Hilarious. One of the core reasons a lot of people are arguing in favour of Trump over Clinton is specifically due to her complete PROVEN repeated incompetence in international diplomacy and affairs.

While I realise that to the posters on here who are anti Trump the fact that Putin and North Korea have said they have time for and would be willing to engage in discussion with Trump but have no interest in talking to any other president or potential president shows he is one and the same or their puppet, personally i think it shows that at least they are willing to engage with him whereas they deeply dislike and distrust Clinton.

Very few politicians or political leaders globally have any time, respect or trust at all for or in Hillary Clinton. Clinton in the Whitehouse is and will be a total disaster.

I would rather the US had a president who could engage in discussion with Russia than a president who wants to start a war with them.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to present facts, or at least strong evidence to back your stance. And posting unsupported assertions as fact is never going to get anyone on your side.

As an example: "Very few politicians or political leaders globally have any time, respect or trust at all for or in Hillary Clinton."

Other than quoting Trump/Alex Jones/Ann Coulter, where's your evidence for this?

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years...

Pew Global Research (non-profit, non-partisan) seem to think otherwise. Clinton is not as well-regarded as Obama, certainly, but there's a very long step from there to your statement.

Here's an article showing what a selection of world leaders think of Trump. I admit that it's not as good as the Pew piece, and that (OMG!) it's produced by the Mainsteam Lying Media (double OMG!!!) but it gives an idea.

http://fortune.com/2016/02/24/donald-trump-nevada-...

Go on, find me something even vaguely authoritative that supports your assertion that Clinton's deeply unpopular with world leaders (other than Putin, Assad and Kim Jong Un).

Not popularity per se but here's something in passing. In a recent New York poll which put Clinton 51%/30% in the lead there, of those surveyed 58% said they did not view Hillary as honest and trustworthy, fewer than said the same about Trump but it's still a sizeable proportion.

[Eric Mc]

JagLover said:

Interesting you should bring up Watergate.

Many believe that Nixon lost the 1960 election after electoral fraud in Illinois and Texas. We never hear about it though because it was never investigated in the way that Watergate was.

Any detailed viewing of the relationship between politics and the media in the US would conclude that something is only a scandal, or even a crime, if the media decide it is.

There is some truth in that. In Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff" he does refer to the media (or press as it was back then) as The Grand Victorian Gent - who take a moral stance on certain issues at certain times. Skulduggery had been going on in American politics since the Declaration of Independence. Thepress (in the form of The Washington Post) only decided to get their bee in a bonnet about it in 1973.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

Not popularity per se but here's something in passing. In a recent New York poll which put Clinton 51%/30% in the lead there, of those surveyed 58% said they did not view Hillary as honest and trustworthy, fewer than said the same about Trump but it's still a sizeable proportion.

It's a vote about "relatives" rather than "absolutes" - as it always is.

[scherzkeks]

frankenstein12 said:

My interest in wikileaks is moderate compared to my interest in the msm and their actions in this campaign.

Erm, the point is that the last few dumps on the Clinton campaign contain proof that journalists are working hand-in-glove with the campaign.

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

powerstroke said:

Will Trump accept the result if he wins ???

More importantly, do the Trump supporters think Hillary should accept that result?

Well since there are no signs or allegations presently of voter fraud from the Republican campaign or side then yes I would say so.


When there is blatant form of voting corruption from one side it is only right to call the result into question.

-> You.




-> the point.



Even on Trump's best case the numbers in voter fraud are inconsequential and won't tip the electoral college. His complaint is much more about the "biased" media.

Of course, he has his own media, in the shape of Fox News, Breitbar, Infowars, Wikileaks, his twitterbots and so on. They're losing the media war though. Because their product is st.

But generally in Trump's mind it's ok for sections of the media to support him, but not ok for larger sections of the media to support Clinton.

What a crybaby loser.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

Not popularity per se but here's something in passing. In a recent New York poll which put Clinton 51%/30% in the lead there, of those surveyed 58% said they did not view Hillary as honest and trustworthy, fewer than said the same about Trump but it's still a sizeable proportion.

It's a vote about "relatives" rather than "absolutes" - as it always is.

Least worst worked for me in the Cameron era.

[frankenstein12]

scherzkeks said:

frankenstein12 said:

My interest in wikileaks is moderate compared to my interest in the msm and their actions in this campaign.

Erm, the point is that the last few dumps on the Clinton campaign contain proof that journalists are working hand-in-glove with the campaign.

Yes they do indicate that but as others have pointed out there is nothing to say Trumps group havent been doing the same and just havent been caught out.


What I am interested in which would give a more telling picture is if there have been more anti trump stories than Clinton within mainstream media relative to their campaign issues so Trumps sex scandal vs Hillarys emails.

So lets say Dailyfail ran over a 31 day period 20 articles on Trump of which 19 were negative and over the same period ran 10 stories over Clinton of which 2 were negative then I would suggest media bias depending on what was happening in their campaigns during that 30 day period.

So for example if most of the negative DM stories were over Trump making stupid comments and at the same period lots of leaks came out about Clinton but there were only 10 articles and of those only 2 were negative and were about the Emails leaked it would show bias supporting Clinton.

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

Least worst worked for me in the Cameron era.

We often make choices in life using that as the criteria. We end up getting what we deserve as a result.

[rscott]

http://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-octobe... - interesting stats. How support for the candidates varies wildly by ethnic group, sex, religion, etc.

[turbobloke]

One of the most bizarre events cropping up in news items over the past couple of days could well be this.

Image probably NSFW
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.283590...

Story with the pic
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-nak...

Anyone got a link to a story about a half-naked Trump statue?!

[_dobbo_]

frankenstein12 said:

So lets say Dailyfail ran over a 31 day period 20 articles on Trump of which 19 were negative and over the same period ran 10 stories over Clinton of which 2 were negative then I would suggest media bias depending on what was happening in their campaigns during that 30 day period.

So for example if most of the negative DM stories were over Trump making stupid comments and at the same period lots of leaks came out about Clinton but there were only 10 articles and of those only 2 were negative and were about the Emails leaked it would show bias supporting Clinton.

There's a danger in attributing this to bias. You could equally argue that it would show a newspaper writing stories that appeal to their audience and so sell more copies, and more advertising space/clicks. Newspapers know which stories get more interest, and write more of those stories.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

One of the most bizarre events cropping up in news items over the past couple of days could well be this.

Image probably NSFW
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.283590...

Story with the pic
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-nak...

Anyone got a link to a story about a half-naked Trump statue?!

Only a completely naked one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/naked-d... .

Which contains this quote:- "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small,"

[rscott]

_dobbo_ said:

frankenstein12 said:

So lets say Dailyfail ran over a 31 day period 20 articles on Trump of which 19 were negative and over the same period ran 10 stories over Clinton of which 2 were negative then I would suggest media bias depending on what was happening in their campaigns during that 30 day period.

So for example if most of the negative DM stories were over Trump making stupid comments and at the same period lots of leaks came out about Clinton but there were only 10 articles and of those only 2 were negative and were about the Emails leaked it would show bias supporting Clinton.

There's a danger in attributing this to bias. You could equally argue that it would show a newspaper writing stories that appeal to their audience and so sell more copies, and more advertising space/clicks. Newspapers know which stories get more interest, and write more of those stories.

Are newspapers in the US not allowed to pick a side in polls and support that viewpoint? They're certainly ok to in the UK (just look at the pro/anti Brexit campaigning by the Express & Guardian, for example).

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

One of the most bizarre events cropping up in news items over the past couple of days could well be this.

Image probably NSFW
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.283590...

Story with the pic
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-nak...

Anyone got a link to a story about a half-naked Trump statue?!

Only a completely naked one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/naked-d... .

Which contains this quote:- "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small"

Excellent.

[unrepentant]

rscott said:

Are newspapers in the US not allowed to pick a side in polls and support that viewpoint? They're certainly ok to in the UK (just look at the pro/anti Brexit campaigning by the Express & Guardian, for example).

Most newspapers here will endorse a candidate. Nearly all have endorsed Clinton.

The media have reported Trump extensively during this campaign. The cable news networks have given him a disproportionate amount of airtime both during the primary and the general. The fact is that Trump says a lot of stupid, often disqualifying, things and the media report them. That's bias?

Do the majority of journalists want Trump to lose? Given that they are human beings and Trump is the least fit candidate to ever run then yes they probably do. The good thing is that they don't need to invent with him, he opens his mouth and gives them a headline most days. The extraordinary thing is if you listen to talk radio or FOX you would think he was winning. Now that is dishonest journalism, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[frankenstein12]

rscott said:

_dobbo_ said:

frankenstein12 said:

So lets say Dailyfail ran over a 31 day period 20 articles on Trump of which 19 were negative and over the same period ran 10 stories over Clinton of which 2 were negative then I would suggest media bias depending on what was happening in their campaigns during that 30 day period.

So for example if most of the negative DM stories were over Trump making stupid comments and at the same period lots of leaks came out about Clinton but there were only 10 articles and of those only 2 were negative and were about the Emails leaked it would show bias supporting Clinton.

There's a danger in attributing this to bias. You could equally argue that it would show a newspaper writing stories that appeal to their audience and so sell more copies, and more advertising space/clicks. Newspapers know which stories get more interest, and write more of those stories.

Are newspapers in the US not allowed to pick a side in polls and support that viewpoint? They're certainly ok to in the UK (just look at the pro/anti Brexit campaigning by the Express & Guardian, for example).

They certainly are but my concern would come about if and when almost all mainstream media target one party over the other. As said I look at the Syria situation for my concerns. We see a very one sided narrative by all MSM with no real deviation no mention of the other side of the story.

As yet I have not seen in any mainstream media reports on the International peace mission report from Syria slating the US and Europe for its sanctions on Syria. I have not seen anything in the mainstream media about the fact the rebels are bombing the Government controlled side of Allepo which is only going to harm fellow civilians not the military or government and so on.

When MSM only tell one side of a story that supports gov position then I question their motivation in reporting the Trump VS Clinton campaigns as well.

[FN2TypeR]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/independent-preside...

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

frankenstein12 said:

My interest in wikileaks is moderate compared to my interest in the msm and their actions in this campaign.

Erm, the point is that the last few dumps on the Clinton campaign contain proof that journalists are working hand-in-glove with the campaign.

And Trump's campaign aren't doing the same with Breitbart, given that Trump's campaign chief is the chairman of Breitbart Media?

[Halb]

FN2TypeR said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/independent-preside...

Interesting, it's the only state I can see that has a sizable third percentage.