News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

I saw this article about Jill Stein supporters. 'The only other option': Bernie Sanders backers turn to Green party's Jill Stein | US news | The Guardian

I saw this old thread on here where you can put in who you most side with.:p
isidewith.com quiz about the presidential candidates | Vegetarian and Vegan Forums @ Veggie Views

I just did the quiz again and got 100% Clinton, 98% Stein.

America’s most popular voting guide for elections, political issues, candidates, and poll data

I side with Hillary Clinton on most 2016 Presidential Election issues

Candidates you side with...

100% Hillary Clinton Democratic
on social, healthcare, domestic policy, environmental, criminal, economic, immigration, education, foreign policy, and electoral issues.

98% Jill Stein Green
on social, healthcare, domestic policy, environmental, foreign policy, criminal, immigration, economic, science, and electoral issues.

59% Gary Johnson Libertarian
on social, foreign policy, and electoral issues.

7% Donald Trump Republican
no major issues.
 
Last edited:
Moll Flanders said:
What did you think of the article?
Click to expand...
I found it very interesting. I did have a hard time sifting through it...it was long...attempting to find the bottom line. I think I was more rapped up and disturbed at how there are people living in such poverty. I was especially focused on “We”–meaning hillbillies–“are the only group of people you don’t have to be ashamed to look down upon.”

I have a really hard time with politics. I'm at a point where I'm really mistrusting of all of it and very disillusioned.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KLS52 said:
I found it very interesting. I did have a hard time sifting through it...it was long...attempting to find the bottom line. I think I was more rapped up and disturbed at how there are people living in such poverty. I was especially focused on “We”–meaning hillbillies–“are the only group of people you don’t have to be ashamed to look down upon.”
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought that was interesting.
 
shyvas said:
I wonder why Clinton seems to be above the law concerning the handling of her e mail account which including classified information ? The press seem to have given her a pass. Is there a double standard for certain citizens who break the law ?

Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: The Quick List of Clinton’s Eight E-mail Lies
Click to expand...

Again, you're speaking as someone who is not in the U.S. and is not regularly reading or listening to U.S. news. It's not just a daily, but an hourly, conversation on the news here.

The National Review, BTW, is an extremely Republican publication. A bit more intellectual than Fox News, but with no less of a slant.

As others have pointed out in this thread, and have provided links, what Hillary did with her emails was what other officialss were doing. She, although, is the only one to have been the focus of unending investigations and news reporting.

Partially, that's a function of her being a Clinton, and partially of her being the female Clinton. (Is anyone really surprised that Bill, who is the Clinton with the real track record of misdeeds, remains popular regardless, while everyone jumps all over Hillary, not only for her own actions, but also for Bill's misdeeds?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
ONE persistent narrative in American politics is that Hillary Clinton is a slippery, compulsive liar while Donald Trump is a gutsy truth-teller.

Yet the idea that they are even in the same league is preposterous. If deception were a sport, Trump would be the Olympic gold medalist; Clinton would be an honorable mention at her local Y.

Let’s investigate.

One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton’s statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump’s. It said 2 percent of Clinton’s statements it had reviewed were egregious “pants on fire” lies, compared with 19 percent of Trump’s. So Trump has nine times the share of flat-out lies as Clinton.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?_r=0

Others have previously posted links to fact check organizations that repeatedly found that Clinton was more truthful than anyone else in the primary field. (Yes, more truthful than Bernie, who came in second. Trump of course lagged way in the rear.)
 
Donald Trump made public his team of economic advisers to “make America great again,” an early indication of the plan the Republican presidential candidate will unveil in a speech Monday to turn around an economy he has said has been hurt by poor trade agreements, immigration, and the loss of American manufacturers.

Among the 13 men on Mr. Trump’s list are hedge-fund managers, bankers, real estate investors, a steel executive, and a fracking tycoon. Absent are the names of any women and well-known policy experts, save for one economist with a doctorate and a tax policy expert.
Click to expand...

Trump’s advisers, whose median worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions, embodies his anti-establishment pitch that America’s billionaires are the only ones who can save the country.
Click to expand...

The team includes Trump’s competitors, associates, and friends. One of the most prominent names on it is John Paulson, president and chief executive of the investment firm that bears his name. Mr. Paulson earned himself and his firm billions of dollars when he bet on the 2007 housing market collapse, according to the Times. Paulson’s move on stocks and the economy have been less accurate lately, according to Reuters. His investments have lost about $15 billion in assets in the last five years.
Click to expand...

What Trump's team of advisers tells us about his economic plan
 
Spang said:
Diagnosing Trump and his supporters over the Internet is unethical and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? In what parallel universe? In what time period?

Dr. Justin Frank, MD, has written two books diagnosing two Presidents, Bush and Obama. Has he been stripped of his medical license? Has he been fired from his faculty position of Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center?

Has any psychiatrist or psychologist in the United States been professionally sanctioned during the last ten years in the US for engaging in the sort of "unethical and irresponsible" behavior you are describing?

Justin A. Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interview: A Psychoanalyst Puts Obama on the Couch
 
Joe said:
Oh, really? In what parallel universe? In what time period?
Click to expand...
Feel free to call a psychiatrist and ask them to diagnose you over the phone. Or maybe reach out to them via their Facebook page, or shoot them an email. You might even send them a tweet and see if they can diagnose you in 140 characters or less.
 
Spang said:
Feel free to call a psychiatrist and ask them to diagnose you over the phone. Or maybe reach out to them via their Facebook page, or shoot them an email. You might even send them a tweet and see if they can diagnose you in 140 characters or less.
Click to expand...

I have no need to do any nonsense like you propose. And their supposed unwillingness to diagnose me might just be due to greed, not ethics.

The fact that Dr. Frank and others can publish psychiatric opinions about Presidents and other public figures without sanctions or other punishments shows that your sentiments do not apply to the real world.
 
Joe said:
I have no need to do any nonsense like you propose. And their supposed unwillingness to diagnose me might just be due to greed, not ethics.
Click to expand...
Or the Goldwater Rule:
Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated. The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Factmagazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

While there was no formal policy in place at the time that survey was published, the ethical implications of the Goldwater survey, in which some responding doctors even issued specific diagnoses without ever having examined him personally, became immediately clear. This large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry.
Click to expand...
 
Mischief said:
Again, you're speaking as someone who is not in the U.S. and is not regularly reading or listening to U.S. news. It's not just a daily, but an hourly, conversation on the news here.

The National Review, BTW, is an extremely Republican publication. A bit more intellectual than Fox News, but with no less of a slant.

As others have pointed out in this thread, and have provided links, what Hillary did with her emails was what other officialss were doing. She, although, is the only one to have been the focus of unending investigations and news reporting.

Partially, that's a function of her being a Clinton, and partially of her being the female Clinton. (Is anyone really surprised that Bill, who is the Clinton with the real track record of misdeeds, remains popular regardless, while everyone jumps all over Hillary, not only for her own actions, but also for Bill's misdeeds?)
Click to expand...

I was seeking an objective opinion about how Clinton handled her e mail account. I watched James Comey testify at congress and was quite surprised by the outcome of the investigation.
Clinton seems like a very unpopular candidate and despite this the press are more lenient towards her than to Trump.

Furthermore, I don't know why you are assuming that I may not be aware of certain facts as you think that I don't watch the US news on a regular basis !

I also prefer people that lay down the facts and are objective rather than those who give intellectual points of view.

I may be an outsider as I live in Europe but many of us are quite interested in the US elections and also have discussions concerning the candidates and reviews.

U.S. election: How the world sees it - CNN.com
 
Last edited:
Mischief said:
Trump has indeed brought out the crazies, as McCain said.
Click to expand...
Trump is just the last in a long line of Republicans with appeal to the crazies. The Republicans (politicians, their donors, and their friends in the media) have brought this on themselves. What about the Tea Party, for example? What about Fox News? Intelligent design?
 
shyvas said:
Clinton seems like a very unpopular candidate and despite this the press are more lenient towards her than to Trump.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

The files logged against Trump for raping underage girls are not covered a lot by the media, neither are his unethical business practices to 'screw' small suppliers financially.
 
Top Bottom