American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
amusingduck said:
If you dig into the primary source (http://www.hollerbackfilm.com/blog/wass-can) - it seems stronger than a "suggestion" to me. They couldn't explain the results, even when controlling for race, income, etc. They could not replicate the results no matter how they distributed the votes between the candidates.
I don't disagree with any of that. But it is clearly NOT what the headline implied, is it? In fact it's not even anywhere near "beyond a shadow of doubt". There is just doubt.source said:
No matter what percentages of the actual votes we distributed to the candidates, we were unable to replicate the reported results. If the division of the votes is close to what we started with in Figure 7 and then a manufactured 3.5% increase in Wasserman Schultz' results, and a manufactured 3.5% decrease in Canova's results are input into the graph, then the reported totals can be replicated almost exactly (Figure 9). This would seem to imply some kind of manipulation was necessary to obtain these results. It is possible that the reported results are based on demographic trends, but that those trends are being exaggerated in some way
Not beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt proof, i'll admit. But it should be investigated. rscott said:
stuckmojo said:
This is a good article (even if from Zerohedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-...
Snobs like unrepentant would do well to read and think for a minute. Because it's about time he and they realise they are too being xenophobic with those who don't align with their line of thought. Look at the insults and words used to describe Trump supporters (actually, to describe anyone who doesn't love Hillary) and see.
I kind of get that the red patch people who had enough - how many of them out there? - will vote for anyone who can stick a middle finger up to those who abandoned them.
No matter what the election results are, there's a widening rift between opposite sides. Like Brexit, but a whole lot worse.
How bad did things have to get for people to support someone like Trump?
Certainly an interesting read and does explain well why the less urban parts of the US aren't happy with their lot. It doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining why Trump is so popular though, other than 'he's a bad boy , so they like him'. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-...
Snobs like unrepentant would do well to read and think for a minute. Because it's about time he and they realise they are too being xenophobic with those who don't align with their line of thought. Look at the insults and words used to describe Trump supporters (actually, to describe anyone who doesn't love Hillary) and see.
I kind of get that the red patch people who had enough - how many of them out there? - will vote for anyone who can stick a middle finger up to those who abandoned them.
No matter what the election results are, there's a widening rift between opposite sides. Like Brexit, but a whole lot worse.
How bad did things have to get for people to support someone like Trump?
If that was happening in the UK the frothy right-wing would be going ballistic.
Countdown said:
That was my thinking as well. The problem is that States with even small numbers of people still get 2 Senators so the Senate is a disporporionate representation.
"The role of the Senate was conceived by the Founding Fathers as a check on the popularly elected House of Representatives. Thus, each state, regardless of size or population, is equally represented."Einion Yrth said:
unrepentant said:
Vaud said:
unrepentant said:
His Wiki page suggests otherwise and I have always been led to believe the wording as stated. My mother was a Tory councillor on the GLC at the time and has spoken of it to me in shocked terms. Anyway, whatever the exact wording was the sentiment is the same and one Trump would approve of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Griffiths
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Griffiths
The Senate worked back when the 13 colonies became states (like the electoral college), but not when the nation swelled to include vast swathes with tiny populations.
The USA for all it's modernity is in dire need of reform, like most other old nations.
Thinking on Trump and the dissatisfaction, it's a shame Jesse Ventura never ran, he is a genuine outsider, not a huckster.
The USA for all it's modernity is in dire need of reform, like most other old nations.
Thinking on Trump and the dissatisfaction, it's a shame Jesse Ventura never ran, he is a genuine outsider, not a huckster.
Halb said:
The Senate worked back when the 13 colonies became states (like the electoral college), but not when the nation swelled to include vast swathes with tiny populations.
The USA for all it's modernity is in dire need of reform, like most other old nations.
Thinking on Trump and the dissatisfaction, it's a shame Jesse Ventura never ran, he is a genuine outsider, not a huckster.
I like Ventura, but he would have been steamrolled. There is way too much out there for his opponents to attack in a persuasive manner, and most Americans are not interested in the kind of introspection he would push. See Carter.The USA for all it's modernity is in dire need of reform, like most other old nations.
Thinking on Trump and the dissatisfaction, it's a shame Jesse Ventura never ran, he is a genuine outsider, not a huckster.
Halb said:
Whatever his political strengths and weaknesses, I think he has got a good sense of humour. Another thing I like is the Correspondents' Dinner. I know the lines are scripted, but it's something the UK could consider to make politicians look more human. Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc have all entered into the spirit of it.
The Bush 2006 was excellent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azu7Xb5hy-4
scherzkeks said:
I like Ventura, but he would have been steamrolled. There is way too much out there for his opponents to attack in a persuasive manner, and most Americans are not interested in the kind of introspection he would push. See Carter.
Have you seen the Joe Rogan podcast? He has no hidden history.scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
amusingduck said:
Countdown said:
Headline says said:
Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount
article says said:
Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."
So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHOAccording to Webster's:
"1 a : an outward sign : indication"
BTW, can you tell me what the definition of is is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8
If you read the original source linked to above, that says:-
However, we have examined statistical analysis of the race from four separate analysts and after detailed demographic research have concluded that there are red flags that deserve further investigation.
Which most definitely isn't what the hubpages article claims. That article made a leap from "there's something which deserves further investigation" to "they fixed the vote" .
Countdown said:
TheExcession said:
Do you have a link to these reports please.
http://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/report-woman-69-pubched-in-face-by-trump-supporter-from-edisto-outside-rallyhttps://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/10008730...
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_12889...
The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
Halb said:
Have you seen the Joe Rogan podcast? He has no hidden history.
Yes, I have. Ventura is an intelligent and curious guy and has a lot of ideas and positions that, while interesting (and in many cases, probably correct), would be easy fodder for his opponent to spin to an uncritical and disinterested public. Doubt he would have any chance, unfortunately.
Well the man once said, the times they are a changin'.
Though Jesse will be too old for the next cycle. I don't see anyone like him who is willing to take the big two one.
Oprah should do it.
Though Jesse will be too old for the next cycle. I don't see anyone like him who is willing to take the big two one.
Oprah should do it.
Vaud said:
The Bush 2006 was excellent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azu7Xb5hy-4
Brilliantrscott said:
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
amusingduck said:
Countdown said:
Headline says said:
Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount
article says said:
Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."
So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHOAccording to Webster's:
"1 a : an outward sign : indication"
BTW, can you tell me what the definition of is is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8
If you read the original source linked to above, that says:-
However, we have examined statistical analysis of the race from four separate analysts and after detailed demographic research have concluded that there are red flags that deserve further investigation.
Which most definitely isn't what the hubpages article claims. That article made a leap from "there's something which deserves further investigation" to "they fixed the vote" .
Furthermore, comprehension is key when reading, rs. See, this sentence: "The pattern is suggestive of the electronic version of 'ballot stuffing' in larger precincts." does not equal this: "That article made a leap from 'there's something which deserves further investigation' to 'they fixed the vote'"
frankenstein12 said:
Countdown said:
TheExcession said:
Do you have a link to these reports please.
http://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/report-woman-69-pubched-in-face-by-trump-supporter-from-edisto-outside-rallyhttps://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/10008730...
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_12889...
The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
He wasn't legally blind, rather has poor vision and is due a cataract operation soon. ( http://abc11.com/politics/lawyer-woman-lying-about... ).
frankenstein12 said:
I really don't see what the last story has to do with anything it wasn't at a rally.
The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
The original question was about violence against women by Trump supporters. Nothing at all to do with whether it WAS at a rally or whether it WASN'T at a rally. And, wrt to the first link, has been pointed out already there are several sources stating that it DID happen. None as credible as Breitbart though....The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
Countdown said:
frankenstein12 said:
I really don't see what the last story has to do with anything it wasn't at a rally.
The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
The original question was about violence against women by Trump supporters. Nothing at all to do with whether it WAS at a rally or whether it WASN'T at a rally. And, wrt to the first link, has been pointed out already there are several sources stating that it DID happen. None as credible as Breitbart though....The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
Oh look she was there antagonising trump supporters
trump-supporter-who-punched-69-year-old-protester-with-oxygen-tank-sought-by-police
Its taken me merely 2 minutes to find these details. What's the bet if I dig a little deeper I find the person who filmed the "Attack" is a Clinton supporter ????
Edited by frankenstein12 on Wednesday 26th October 13:16
frankenstein12 said:
Countdown said:
frankenstein12 said:
I really don't see what the last story has to do with anything it wasn't at a rally.
The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
The original question was about violence against women by Trump supporters. Nothing at all to do with whether it WAS at a rally or whether it WASN'T at a rally. And, wrt to the first link, has been pointed out already there are several sources stating that it DID happen. None as credible as Breitbart though....The second story an anti trump supporter attended a trump rally and upset the crowd and along with around 30 other people was ejected from the event. Same has happened at Clinton rallies.
As to the first story it has been completely made up. Video has shown that the "horrid" man who punched the old lady was in fact a legally blind 73 year old man. It also shows that she walked up behind him and grabbed his shoulder pulling him round slightly. What you don't see is evidence of him actually punching her as claimed.
Esseesse said:
scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
Esseesse said:
unrepentant said:
If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.
Isn't that the place that he talks about that he's just done up? The old post office?https://www.trumphotels.com/washington-dc/old-post...
The main foyer was stunning.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff