• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Jarnhamar said:
Uh huh?
I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/

How scathing of CNN.  Maybe I'll randomly check the other examples you gave me but I suspect it will be more of the same.

I never said scathing, I said critical.

But, I didn't mean "disparaging", I meant "thorough and analytical", meaning they are covering all the topics, including everything to do about Hilary. I apologize for my choice of words. I simply meant to highlight that CNN/MSNBC are covering every story there is about Hilary as they are about Trump; there are just a ton more about Trump.
 
[quote author=Lumber] I simply meant to highlight that CNN/MSNBC are covering every story there is about Hilary as they are about Trump; there are just a ton more about Trump.
[/quote]

That's fair. I'm guilty of being naive, not accepting how the world really works and thinking that dealing and consorting with our enemy (or our enemies allies) is worse than being a loud mouth douchbag.

What kind of violations will Hillary commit when she's the president? Knowing that she basically got away with murder. Is there a point where we'll say enough is enough or will we (the west) keep up supplying rebels then justify fighting them?

I need to grow up  ;D  [but I'm still curious if Canada will continue to supply armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia now that there is proof of Saudi Arabia funding ISIL]
 
Remius said:
How about Fox News.  Mainstream enough or is it fringe reporting?  Lead story is the emails.

Fringe reporting,  comic relief and crazy far right.  I gotta admit Ive only seen fox news a few time and it seemed  as authentic as the onion. 
 
Technoviking said:
2 weeks before the 1980 election, Carter was well ahead of Reagan.

A couple of articles I read quite a while ago said that the pole for weeks before the election were too close to call, then on election day Reagan proved everyone wrong by winning by a large margin.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/31/remembering-1980-are-the-polls-missing-something/

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Carter had to deal with a down economy and carry the blame for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Particularly after the failed rescue attempt in April '80. So it would make more sense that the polls were too close to call or slightly in Reagan's favor.
 
Something else to consider is that Trump seems to have impecable timing when it comes to news cycles.

Every time a significant story about Clinton comes out, Trump invariably steps all over it with either a scandle of his own, or spewing vitriol at everyone who doesn't fall in line, or some faux pas big enough to take the spot light away from Clinton.

If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say he was doing it deliberately to blow the election.
 
What's the world coming to? Even his own VP!

Pence clashes with Trump over attacks on women, ‘rigged’ election
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/16/pence-clashes-with-trump-over-attacks-on-women-rigged-election.html

“We will absolutely accept the result of the election," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence delicately broke with Donald Trump on a range of topics Sunday, including his running mate’s personal attacks against women who have accused him of sexual assault and on whether Russian hackers are responsible for leaking Democratic Party emails.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Fringe reporting,  comic relief and crazy far right.  I gotta admit Ive only seen fox news a few time and it seemed  as authentic as the onion.


Still MSM though and very pro trump.  They have the 3rd largest market share of the Big 6. 
 
Well, for me personally, it doesn't matter how you spin it or who wins for that matter.  It's a shit show and my sympathies go out to the American citizens at large and the world in general as which ever fuckstick wins, all of of us will have to pay for the next four years, plus how ever many years it will take to undo the damage that's coming to us all.
 
FJAG said:
...

The trouble in my mind is that too often we confuse "opinion" writers with "news" reporters. A simple example exists within Fox news: Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are generally fairly decent and level news reporters while folks such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are the mouthpieces for a niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored.

......
Those folks who wonder why the "MSM" doesn't report on the issues put forward by Trump should remind themselves that so far Trump hasn't said much except generalities. I've been to Trump's campaign website and pretty much everything that he says there I've seen reported in the "MSM". (Betcha he won't allow open carry in the lobby of Trump Towers). But there are few details; just vague generalities supported by so called facts which have been debunked numerous times.

One thing that the press hasn't reported very well is that Trump intends to replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts. These will let individuals make tax deductible contributions into an account that they maintain to use in the event of a health care expense. In the US even relatively minor procedures can run into the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To leave the extreme costs of medical events to a privately run "savings account" is the height of inhumanity to your fellow man.  :2c:

:cheers:

God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?

1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?

2) Vague generalities?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/

It's easy to figure out that you don't agree with him, but he has about 14-15 position statements on his website, the one that youve visited, supposedly. Here is Hillary's tax plan, for comparison. If anything, it's a little shorter than Trump's. But his is "vague"  lol

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/

3) HSA's - is one part of about 7 statements he makes regarding his healthcare plan. HSA's are one. By the way, they've been around for years. Every employer I have worked for in the past dozen years or so has offered that as an option. He absolutely does not "simply suggest replacing Obamacare with HSA's. What you stated/inferred is not accurate.

Here's a comparison from that niche mouthpiece, Forbes magazine:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/08/12/where-trump-and-clinton-stand-on-health-care-and-medicare/#766173731eb0


Full disclosure, Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third. I don't even consider myself a supporter. It's your smug, condescending tone that gets my goat quite honestly. Of course, you know more what is best for the US, from your armchair, than people who live here

Oh - and while you're slagging the unwashed masses with your passive-aggressive style - the little clinking beer mugs doesn't change our opinion much
 
Since it has worked so well in the US, I'm sure Canadian "Progressives" will be importing these sorts of techniques to the Great White North soon enough. The clear theme throughout this piece is that the law is simply an impediment which gets in the way, and manipulating media imagery provides the ability to set the "narrative" This is "Dezinformatsiya" and "Maskirovka" on a grand scale:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

Exclusive: O’Keefe Video Sting Exposes ‘Bird-Dogging’ — Democrats’ Effort to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
by JOEL B. POLLAK17 Oct 2016

Democrats have used trained provocateurs to instigate violence at Republican events nationwide throughout the 2016 election cycle, including at several Donald Trump rallies, using a tactic called “bird-dogging,” according to a new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

The goal of “bird-dogging”: to create a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Often, the tactic uses the most vulnerable people — including the elderly and disabled — to maximize shock value.

O’Keefe’s extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer, a veteran Chicago activist and convicted felon who is thought to have planned Democrats’ political strategy during the push for Obamacare in 2009 and 2010.

Creamer is also the co-founder of Democracy Partners, a consulting group that, according to Project Veritas videos, apparently contracts directly with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and that works with an array of super PACs and consultants to organize, film and publicize their provocations.

Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)
Robert Creamer (Screenshot / Project Veritas)

Creamer affirms on one video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work, and that Democracy Partners has a daily telephone call with the Clinton campaign to coordinate efforts.

O’Keefe and his team also obtained hidden camera videos showing one of Creamer’s consultants, Scott Foval, describing “bird-dogging,” among other tactics, and taking credit for having instigated violence at several Republican events during the 2016 election cycle.

Foval — who praises Creamer as “diabolical” — explains how “bird-dogging” works: how they plan confrontations in advance, choose particular individuals to provoke, and maximize media coverage.

FOVAL: So one of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate. And then we get it on tape. And then, when our guys get beat up —

Project Veritas: You mean authentic-seeming grassroots?

FOVAL: No, authentic.

PV: You mean —

FOVAL: Protesters.

PV: So like — progressive, what we saw in Madison.

FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.

PV: So some of this, so I probably know your work.

FOVAL: I know you do. Everybody does. But —

PV: You mean like a situation where it’s sort of like a —

FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?

PV: Yeah.

FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].

PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?

FOVAL: We scenarioed it.

PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back.

PV: That’s ******* brilliant. That’s brilliant.

FOVAL: And then the reporters had people to talk to.

Foval also tells Project Veritas’s undercover journalist that Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”

In another video, Foval admits that his organization is responsible for an incident in Asheville, North Carolina in September, where an elderly woman was allegedly assaulted outside a Trump rally.

In that incident, the 69-year-old woman, wearing an oxygen tank, heckled a visually impaired 73-year-old Trump supporter, then pursued him. She claimed he then punched her in the jaw, though she had no visible injury; his attorney claims she touched him on the shoulder first, and then fell to the ground as he turned around. The national media covered her claims widely, while largely ignoring his. Foval explains that the woman had been “trained” as a part of his operation.

Foval also explains how the operation is set up to allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign “plausible deniability” in the event that the true nature of the deliberate violence is discovered: “The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.”

He explains the flow of money in “rapid response” operations: “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the crap on the ground.”

And Foval emphasizes that the goal of “bird-dogging” is to create a sense of “anarchy” around Trump: ”The bird-dogging. The aggressive bird-dogging. What I call it is ‘conflict engagement.’ … Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies? We’re starting anarchy. And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.”

Scott Foval (Project Veritas / Screenshot)
Scott Foval (Project Veritas / Screenshot)

In another video, Foval notes that the Clinton campaign and the DNC are involved, through a chain of contracts: “We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign. I am contracted to [Robert Creamer] but I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign. Through Bob. We have certain people who do not get to talk to them, at all.”

He explains that Democracy Partners then provides material from the field to the campaign, the DNC, and a wide array of left-wing super PACs and organizations involved in the 2016 election effort:

We have a clip deliverable that we have to deliver every day for our groups of clients who are involved in this project: AUFC; A4C, which is Alliance for Change; Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of AFL-CIO — they’re one of our partners on the AUFC stuff … Depends on the issue. And then there’s the DNC, and the campaigns, and Priorities [USA]. Priorities is a big part of this, too. The campaigns and DNC cannot coordinate with Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other, and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication.

He also explains how the campaign and the super PACs use consultants as intermediaries for communication, since federal law prevents them from coordinating directly. He calls the system the “Pony Express,” linking the DNC through Robert Creamer, through Robert Creamer to Foval, and through Foval to Brad Woodhouse’s super-PAC, Americans United for Change:

FOVAL: We’re consultants, so we’re not the official entity. And so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts. That’s why there’s Bob, who’s the primary there, and I’m a sub to him. And I’m also a primary to AUFC separately, that’s why.

PV: So there’s like a Morse code between the DNC and that Super PACs.And you guys —

FOVAL: It’s less of a Morse code than it is a text conversation that never ends. It’s like that. It’s kind of like an ongoing “Pony Express.” It’s not as official as it could be, but that’s because the law doesn’t allow it to be.

The videos obtained by O’Keefe and Project Veritas corroborate earlier evidence of a Democratic plan to use violent imagery against the Trump campaign. A DNC PowerPoint presentation from April released by Wikileaks includes a plan to cite “incidents of violence” to create the “desired perception” that “Trump is dangerous and divisive, undermining our values and putting our security at risk.”

The “bird-dogging” carried out by Creamer and others would appear to be part of that effort.

In one hidden camera video, filmed at Creamer’s Washington, D.C. office, Creamer explains that Hillary Clinton is aware of “all” of his activities, directly or indirectly, and that Democracy Partners has a daily conference call with the Clinton campaign, as well as frequent calls with the White House.

Wikileaks reveals that at least one “bird-dogging” operation was approved directly by Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager. In an email dated July 4, 2015, Mook approved a plan “to bird dog” Donald Trump, meaning specifically to infiltrate volunteers into his campaign events and ask him questions about immigration.

Mook e-mail (Wikileaks)
Mook e-mail (Wikileaks)

Trump supporters have frequently been the victims of real, as opposed to staged, violence.

In June, for instance, Trump supporters leaving a rally in San Jose were attacked, beaten and chased by left-wing mobs. One woman was pelted with eggs in full view of the national media. The mayor of San Jose blamed Trump for the violence.

Last week, Hillary Clinton supporters attacked a man carrying a sign that read “Bill Clinton is a Rapist” at rally in Las Vegas hosted by the Carpenters Union.

Creamer, who is married to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), is a Saul Alinsky acolyte who trained many of the key political figures in the Chicago clique that surrounds Barack Obama. He went to prison in 2006-7 for a check-kiting scheme, but was hired by Obama to train volunteers for his 2008 presidential campaign.

In 2011, Creamer opened Democracy Partners together with other veteran left-wing organizers, including Heather Booth. Creamer’s occasional columns at the Huffington Post also provide talking points to left-wing activists throughout the country, and are circulated among key Democratic staff.

(Full disclosure: the author ran against Schakowsky for Congress in 2010).

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

and

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246645/

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, IT’S OLD NEWS ANYWAY, LET’S MOVE ON.

#PodestaEmails10
OH CHUCKY TODD: Clinton campaign set the terms of how much NBC could cover the Clinton Foundation. https://t.co/tqVDjpnyPR pic.twitter.com/qWi4D1V1Eo

— Jikary Jack (@JikaryJack) October 17, 2016
 
FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.

I was working with a UAPD Detective today (Liberian Vice President visiting campus - go figure..) who worked a Trump rally in Tucson. Some guy got the snot knocked out of him after antagonizing a rally-goer until the dude lost it (Black Trump supporter, ironically). Anyway, the police asked the guy if he wanted to press charges and he said "Nope, I just wanted to get a reaction, and I got it"
 
muskrat89 said:
God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?

1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?

2) Vague generalities?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/

It's easy to figure out that you don't agree with him, but he has about 14-15 position statements on his website, the one that youve visited, supposedly. Here is Hillary's tax plan, for comparison. If anything, it's a little shorter than Trump's. But his is "vague"  lol

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/

3) HSA's - is one part of about 7 statements he makes regarding his healthcare plan. HSA's are one. By the way, they've been around for years. Every employer I have worked for in the past dozen years or so has offered that as an option. He absolutely does not "simply suggest replacing Obamacare with HSA's. What you stated/inferred is not accurate.

Here's a comparison from that niche mouthpiece, Forbes magazine:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/08/12/where-trump-and-clinton-stand-on-health-care-and-medicare/#766173731eb0


Full disclosure, Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third. I don't even consider myself a supporter. It's your smug, condescending tone that gets my goat quite honestly. Of course, you know more what is best for the US, from your armchair, than people who live here

Oh - and while you're slagging the unwashed masses with your passive-aggressive style - the little clinking beer mugs doesn't change our opinion much

Thanks for not making it personal.

:cheers:
 
Thanks for not making it personal.


::)

niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored

dragged into an illegal war in Iraq by the Bush Republicans

there is a link between those who accept religious "facts"

to compare an idiotic analogy about Skittles made by a moron

The one being sponsored by the Trumpites is simple opportunism that is neither justifiable nor understandable once you strip away the misstatements, outright lies and jingoist rhetoric.

:cheers:

You are probably a nice guy, who I would enjoy having a beer with, in any other context. I didn't attack you as a person, nor your position. I find your tone condescending and your online demeanor, in this discussion, comes across to me - personally - as arrogant. I have not marginalized you as a person, (niche segment), and I haven't called you a moron, or classified your opinion as idiotic. I did state that you fancy yourself an expert - I suppose that was a bit personal and uncalled for.
 
muskrat89 said:
Thanks for not making it personal.


::)

niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored

dragged into an illegal war in Iraq by the Bush Republicans

there is a link between those who accept religious "facts"

to compare an idiotic analogy about Skittles made by a moron

The one being sponsored by the Trumpites is simple opportunism that is neither justifiable nor understandable once you strip away the misstatements, outright lies and jingoist rhetoric.

:cheers:

You are probably a nice guy, who I would enjoy having a beer with, in any other context. I didn't attack you as a person, nor your position. I find your tone condescending and your online demeanor, in this discussion, comes across to me - personally - as arrogant. I have not marginalized you as a person, (niche segment), and I haven't called you a moron, or classified your opinion as idiotic. I did state that you fancy yourself an expert - I suppose that was a bit personal and uncalled for.

There's no sense in keeping this up in this thread. I'll PM you in due course.

:cheers:
 
muskrat89 said:
God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?

1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?

2) Vague generalities?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/

It's easy to figure out that you don't agree with him, but he has about 14-15 position statements on his website, the one that youve visited, supposedly. Here is Hillary's tax plan, for comparison. If anything, it's a little shorter than Trump's. But his is "vague"  lol

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/

3) HSA's - is one part of about 7 statements he makes regarding his healthcare plan. HSA's are one. By the way, they've been around for years. Every employer I have worked for in the past dozen years or so has offered that as an option. He absolutely does not "simply suggest replacing Obamacare with HSA's. What you stated/inferred is not accurate.

Here's a comparison from that niche mouthpiece, Forbes magazine:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/08/12/where-trump-and-clinton-stand-on-health-care-and-medicare/#766173731eb0


Full disclosure, Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third. I don't even consider myself a supporter. It's your smug, condescending tone that gets my goat quite honestly. Of course, you know more what is best for the US, from your armchair, than people who live here

Oh - and while you're slagging the unwashed masses with your passive-aggressive style - the little clinking beer mugs doesn't change our opinion much
:goodpost: There it is. That's what I've been waiting for.

Muskrat, you're right.
 
muskrat89 said:
Some guy got the snot knocked out of him after antagonizing a rally-goer until the dude lost it (Black Trump supporter, ironically).

Reading that made me curious about the demographics of Mr. Trump's supporters,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/dissecting-donald-trumps-support/499739/
( That's from Sep 14, 2016. Not sure if his demographics have changed since then? )

One can only guess what the demographics are in internet forums.

Whoever gets in, I hope the losers will be satisfied with taking out their frustrations on their keyboards.

 
mariomike said:
Whoever gets in,  I hope the losers will be satisfied with taking out their frustrations on their keyboards how democracy functions in that particular country, and move on with their lives.
I hold no great hope of that happening.  :(
 
Journeyman said:
I hold no great hope of that happening.  :(

Wishful thinking on my part. I suspect emergency services are preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best.

This is just from the past week,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=election+violence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Zx4GWJeSA6iC8QffrLQw&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:w&q=presidential+election+violence



 
Back
Top