Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738122 times)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2050 on: June 12, 2016, 04:34:46 PM »
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.


Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely.  I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.

I meant the southern Democrats, which was the context. Where the Jim Crow stuff was that the Democrats put an end to, so the officials (and many people) in the south changed parties or were replaced by Republicans. The south is the Republican base.

I think they're just better at hiding it and I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the Democrats aren't racist, even unintentionally.

Where did I saw the Democrats aren't racist? I think everyone is racist to some degree. We all prejudge people based on our experiences or the information fed to us. The difference among people is how we educate ourselves to overcome bad programming. What I said was that the Democrats decided to put an end to the racist activities of Jim Crow and the like, where government was enforcing racist policies.

Also, if old Democrats are the new Republicans, does that mean that Republicans can claim credit for all the 'great' progressive programs brought about by the old Democrat party in the last century? FDR, JFK, Johnson were really Republican, I knew it!

Northern Democrats are not the same as old school southern Democrats. And of course not everyone in a group is the same as everyone else in that group.

I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing.  Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions.  Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.

The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2051 on: June 12, 2016, 04:45:09 PM »
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing.  Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions.  Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.

The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.

Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2052 on: June 12, 2016, 04:59:35 PM »
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing.  Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions.  Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.

The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.

Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.

I often find myself wondering whether to what degree the 'talking-head' types or press-secretaries really believe what they are saying, especially when it's heavily spun for/against a given party.  The monthly economic data is a perfect example.  Almost every economist will tell agree that last month's employment data is highly uncertain (indeed, the initial number will be revised a total of 7 times over 2 years and has a margin of error of ~+/- 40,000!), and what matters is year+ long trends.  Yet every single month, regardless of who's in the whitehouse we are treated to a blurb about how "this month's employment data is evidence that our policies are working/failing!" 
I have a hard time believing that they really believe that.  Or maybe they are so deep into 'the game' that they've bought into it.  Who knows.



Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2053 on: June 12, 2016, 06:56:12 PM »
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:

Quote
But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

STOP LYING.

The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/

My goal isn't so much defending her as calling out your bullshit.

That link says the universities knew of her heritage at some point. It doesn't say that she told them in order to get a job, Which Is What You Were Claiming.

I'm finished with you. Congratulations - you've made my list of MMM forumers that I will not engage with because you don't argue in good faith. Have a nice life.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2054 on: June 12, 2016, 07:03:20 PM »
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.


Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely.  I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.

I meant the southern Democrats, which was the context, changed parties and became the new base. The south is where the Jim Crow stuff was that the Democrats put an end to, so the officials (and many people) in the south changed parties or were replaced by Republicans. The south is the Republican base. I didn't say everyone was racist. Just that those people changed parties.

If I misinterpreted, my apologies.  It sounded like you were speaking the present, but maybe that was not the case.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2055 on: June 12, 2016, 07:29:07 PM »
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.

Oh, you mean like you did a few posts back when you accused all the racists of joining the Republican party back in the day while the Democrats magically rose above it? Your head is so far up your ass that you are blind to your hypocrisy.

Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.

Pull your head out of your ass and clean the shit out of your eyes.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2056 on: June 12, 2016, 07:36:13 PM »
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.

Oh, you mean like you did a few posts back when you accused all the racists of joining the Republican party back in the day while the Democrats magically rose above it? Your head is so far up your ass that you are blind to your hypocrisy.

Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.

Pull your head out of your ass and clean the shit out of your eyes.

Let's keep this debate civil and not violate the forum rules, ok?
thank you.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2057 on: June 12, 2016, 08:02:31 PM »
Let's keep this debate civil and not violate the forum rules, ok?
thank you.

A very good reminder - thanks.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2058 on: June 13, 2016, 06:03:58 AM »
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:

Quote
But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

STOP LYING.

The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/

My goal isn't so much defending her as calling out your bullshit.

That link says the universities knew of her heritage at some point. It doesn't say that she told them in order to get a job, Which Is What You Were Claiming.

I'm finished with you. Congratulations - you've made my list of MMM forumers that I will not engage with because you don't argue in good faith. Have a nice life.

There's no direct proof she lied about it on order to get a job, but Harvard doesn't usually hire graduates of Rutgers-Newark. It's suspicious, though, and certainly worth acknowledging. To my knowledge there is no proof she's actually descended from Native Americans, so claiming to be is pretty sketchy.

Unfortunately many Republicans seem incapable of criticizing her on this without things starting to sound racist against Native Americans, which is bizarre since the whole point is the Warren is white.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2059 on: June 13, 2016, 06:40:15 AM »
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.

Hmm.  OK, you don't like affirmative action policies.

There is clear evidence of systemic racism going on today.  Something as simple as having a black sounding name on a resume makes you much less likely to be hired for work (http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873), you are more likely to be pulled over by police if you're black than white (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/), you are more likely to have a teacher give up on you and send you to remedial classes if you're black - (https://newrepublic.com/article/117775/brown-v-board-60-years-later-racial-divide-students-teachers).

Given that minorities are on unequal footing, how do you propose that equality and fairness are better promoted?

MrStash2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2060 on: June 13, 2016, 07:12:42 AM »
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.

Hmm.  OK, you don't like affirmative action policies.

There is clear evidence of systemic racism going on today.  Something as simple as having a black sounding name on a resume makes you much less likely to be hired for work (http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873), you are more likely to be pulled over by police if you're black than white (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/), you are more likely to have a teacher give up on you and send you to remedial classes if you're black - (https://newrepublic.com/article/117775/brown-v-board-60-years-later-racial-divide-students-teachers).

Given that minorities are on unequal footing, how do you propose that equality and fairness are better promoted?

Q: What happens to people who are told early retirement is a dream for most?

A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.

so....

Q: What happens to people who are told that the system is "rigged" against you? 

A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.


Take it further and say you a raising a large group of children.

One group is told to work hard and study. We will make no special considerations for this group and they must achieve by their merit. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?

The other group is is told the system is "rigged." The majority of the ruling class is predisposed to discriminate and hate them. Also you will not make it on your own merit and special considerations will be given to you. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2061 on: June 13, 2016, 07:35:39 AM »
Take it further and say you a raising a large group of children.

One group is told to work hard and study. We will make no special considerations for this group and they must achieve by their merit. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?

The other group is is told the system is "rigged." The majority of the ruling class is predisposed to discriminate and hate them. Also you will not make it on your own merit and special considerations will be given to you. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?


In your hypothetical, I'd say that probably the other group will do worse.  It forgets some key points (minorities demonstrably have the system rigged against them, it's not something that they're just told), and invents some other new points (minorities don't make it on their own merit?).




Let's make the situation more comparable to reality today.

Let's say you're raising a large group of children.  Group A will receive a lower quality of education.  Group A will be hassled by the police regularly.  Group A will be passed over for better jobs because of their names.  The children of Group A will receive the same treatment as their parents.

Group B will not have any of those problems.  The children of Group B will receive the same treatment as their parents.

Which group do you think will do better in life on average?  After a couple generations, which group do you think will be more likely to be involved in crime, to live in poverty, to hold crappy jobs?



Some more interesting questions come when you consider the impact to society as a whole.  It is not reasonable to expect a group that is disadvantaged to ever do as well as a group that isn't.  Is it better for society if Group A were to stay as a permanent underclass?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2062 on: June 13, 2016, 08:56:04 AM »

[snip]

Q: What happens to people who are told that the system is "rigged" against you? 

A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.


I'm about to wade into AA policies here, but as I biked into work this morning it occurred to me that this kind of thinking could go a long way in explaining why so many see our economy and our country itself as 'headed in the wrong direction'.
to illustrate:

Q: what happens when you constantly mention the 'struggling middle class' and 'stagnant wages' and a 'failed economy'

A: we feel poor, even though quantitatively speaking the middle class has about as much as they did 10 years ago when we felt 'rich'.

Q (alt 1): what happens when we constantly talk about this 'war on terror'...
Q (alt 2): what happens when we keep saying that our country "keeps loosing"?
Q (alt 3): ...etc etc.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2063 on: June 13, 2016, 09:47:27 AM »

[snip]

Q: What happens to people who are told that the system is "rigged" against you? 

A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.


I'm about to wade into AA policies here, but as I biked into work this morning it occurred to me that this kind of thinking could go a long way in explaining why so many see our economy and our country itself as 'headed in the wrong direction'.
to illustrate:

Q: what happens when you constantly mention the 'struggling middle class' and 'stagnant wages' and a 'failed economy'

A: we feel poor, even though quantitatively speaking the middle class has about as much as they did 10 years ago when we felt 'rich'.

Q (alt 1): what happens when we constantly talk about this 'war on terror'...
Q (alt 2): what happens when we keep saying that our country "keeps loosing"?
Q (alt 3): ...etc etc.

Given the economy is doing better than most of the world and we've made steady upward progress since the Bush economy meltdown, the GOP mantra that "the economy sucks" is silly.  They are appealing to the loser base of angry old white guys -- Trump's rhetoric will continue and it will not be prettyi.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2064 on: June 13, 2016, 10:03:36 AM »

Given the economy is doing better than most of the world and we've made steady upward progress since the Bush economy meltdown, the GOP mantra that "the economy sucks" is silly.  They are appealing to the loser base of angry old white guys -- Trump's rhetoric will continue and it will not be prettyi.

While I agree that the current 'the economy sucks' mantra is silly, I won't pin this entirely on the GOP. Both parties have used this tactic over the decades to convince people that either i) things are bad OR ii) things are ok despite current policies, and they'd so much better if we changed leadership.
But I only blame the rank-and-file politicians so far.  Everyone (should) know that a politician's public statements will be biased towards their own party line.  That's to be expected.

I'm more critical of the steady drum-beat of "things-are-bad/things-are-bad/things-are-bad" from the media and general public. Yes, we absolutely have challenging problems to solve, but there's a lack of perspective.  Its good to talk about soft-spots in the economy, but those should be compared to other times.  It's fine to point out that wages have barely gone up, but it should also be mentioned that they are as high today as they have been at any point in our history, and we're much better off on average than, say, during the 80s.  Want to talk aobut unemployment?  how about measuring them to the other developed nations (e.g. Japan and Germany are slightly better, we're about tied with the UK and way ahead of Canada, France and Italy).  We lack balance.  Seldom are we offered a fair frame of reference or historical context.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2065 on: June 13, 2016, 11:32:57 AM »
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.
Oh, you mean like you did a few posts back when you accused all the racists of joining the Republican party back in the day while the Democrats magically rose above it? Your head is so far up your ass that you are blind to your hypocrisy.

Or you could read my clarification that I did no such thing. I apologize if my initial writing was unclear. Hopefully my clarification is much more clear. Many of the people voting for the CRA and VRA were also racist and said and did things that are not acceptable by today's standards. Even though LBJ pushed it he had a questionable past on the topic. And many Republicans supported the CRA. The point was that for people who care about the success of a party (and I don't), the Democrats screwed themselves by doing the right thing. They lost the south for at least 2 generations. Now, they have also secured most of the rest of the country in the interim decades. But the CRA was a costly political move in many ways with longstanding repercussions.

But it is unquestionable that the parties realigned in the south. If you were white, you generally were a Republican. If you were black you generally were a Democrat. Those racial splits still carry over today. Why that happened has many factors. Racial relations was definitely one of those factors for many people.

Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.

Specifically what federal-level special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities today?

Why is it that blacks are far more likely to get arrested and convicted for a crime than a white person committing the same crime? Doesn't sound like we "excuse" blacks committing crime. Our prisons are full of black men while a lot of white men doing the same things (like drug dealing or drug using) walk free.

Maybe you should consider applying to yourself some of the advice you gave me.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2066 on: June 13, 2016, 11:46:37 AM »
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing.  Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions.  Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.

The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.

Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.

I often find myself wondering whether to what degree the 'talking-head' types or press-secretaries really believe what they are saying, especially when it's heavily spun for/against a given party.  The monthly economic data is a perfect example.  Almost every economist will tell agree that last month's employment data is highly uncertain (indeed, the initial number will be revised a total of 7 times over 2 years and has a margin of error of ~+/- 40,000!), and what matters is year+ long trends.  Yet every single month, regardless of who's in the whitehouse we are treated to a blurb about how "this month's employment data is evidence that our policies are working/failing!" 
I have a hard time believing that they really believe that.  Or maybe they are so deep into 'the game' that they've bought into it.  Who knows.

Unfortunately, it's "required" behavior for any public official now. Part of that is the news media sucking so badly. If they could provide objectivity (instead of neutrality) it might go a long way towards injecting some honesty into things. Now, they just let Side A say whatever, and then Side B gets to say whatever, and they argue, and the listener has no idea what's true. They want to play everything like it's 50/50. If they did this with sports, they would say, "Well, the Patriots claim they won. And the Steelers claim they one." Now, there is a pretty clear answer to this question, but the media certainly won't tell you about it. That's why it was very surprising to me that they have started to call out Trump and say he "lies". Normally the media kiss the politician's ass and hope they'll give them the quotes they need and come back on their show. They will occasionally do some measured amount of "hard" questions. But not too much. They need access more than anything. The news has become a profit center business. It's all about ratings and selling ads. For a long time it was easier to get ratings if you had a fight on the air between the pundits. And to keep the segments short to match attention spans. So now it's just name calling and lying but without enough time for people actually learn any useful information. And you can rarely criticize a corporation that buys ads on your show. It's only really safe to do that if everyone else will have similar criticism. Why else would ADM, which sells no products directly to consumers, advertise on political talk shows? There are other problems too, but the media is a big one.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2067 on: June 13, 2016, 02:50:06 PM »



Unfortunately, it's "required" behavior for any public official now. Part of that is the news media sucking so badly. If they could provide objectivity (instead of neutrality) it might go a long way towards injecting some honesty into things. Now, they just let Side A say whatever, and then Side B gets to say whatever, and they argue, and the listener has no idea what's true. They want to play everything like it's 50/50. If they did this with sports, they would say, "Well, the Patriots claim they won. And the Steelers claim they one." Now, there is a pretty clear answer to this question, but the media certainly won't tell you about it. That's why it was very surprising to me that they have started to call out Trump and say he "lies". Normally the media kiss the politician's ass and hope they'll give them the quotes they need and come back on their show. They will occasionally do some measured amount of "hard" questions. But not too much. They need access more than anything. The news has become a profit center business. It's all about ratings and selling ads. For a long time it was easier to get ratings if you had a fight on the air between the pundits. And to keep the segments short to match attention spans. So now it's just name calling and lying but without enough time for people actually learn any useful information. And you can rarely criticize a corporation that buys ads on your show. It's only really safe to do that if everyone else will have similar criticism. Why else would ADM, which sells no products directly to consumers, advertise on political talk shows? There are other problems too, but the media is a big one.

That's a very astute criticism; the problem is not always a lack of neutrality, but a lack of objectivity.  Objectivity and neutrality are not the same.  Certainly there are pundits and certain outlets that don't even attempt to be neutral, but of the ones that do they forget to also be objective in their reporting.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2068 on: June 13, 2016, 05:42:00 PM »
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2069 on: June 13, 2016, 06:17:50 PM »
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.
Trump is still a private citizen.  If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.

If Trump should ever become President, then he should have to put up with the same First Amendment freedom of the press issues as all previous presidents.  E.g., see http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/ and http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97771/ (although the latter would seem to give Trump more leeway than I'd like to see).

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2070 on: June 13, 2016, 07:20:22 PM »
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.
Trump is still a private citizen.  If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.

If Trump should ever become President, then he should have to put up with the same First Amendment freedom of the press issues as all previous presidents.  E.g., see http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/ and http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97771/ (although the latter would seem to give Trump more leeway than I'd like to see).

But Trump did suggest that Obama was involved or at least sympathetic.

Trump:

Quote
"Look, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind," Trump said in a lengthy interview on Fox News early Monday morning. "And the something else in mind — you know, people can't believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on."

In that same interview, Trump was asked to explain why he called for Obama to resign in light of the shooting and he answered, in part: "He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable."

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2071 on: June 13, 2016, 07:41:34 PM »
But Trump did suggest that Obama was involved or at least sympathetic.

Indeed - but there is a big difference between "involved" (active effort) vs. "sympathetic" (philosophical outlook).

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3311
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2072 on: June 13, 2016, 11:42:10 PM »
You know when you get a Hallmark card from your Aunt Betty, you open it up, and feign to read the blathering prose of platitudes contained within? You kind of skim it, but it's so lame, you just can't bring yourself to give it serious attention. So you bide your time and wait a few beats before looking up to thank her.  It's not the same thing, but similar to how I feel when I read quotes from Trump - I think he's so ignorant and disingenuous on policy, that when he expresses his vapid opinions, all I see is lame prose. No meaning. And so I just glaze over it and think, so what? Now there's an answer to 'so what?' And that answer is he just might trick people into putting him into the presidency.

Even my dad, the other day, emailed me something to the effect of why I should vote for Trump. His argument boiled down to Trump bringing in outsiders. (my answer to him: sure, some might be good, others might be CEOs from the oil industry and climate change deniers). Three months ago, my dad hated Trump.   (Yes my Drumpfinator is on.)

My head hurts.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2073 on: June 13, 2016, 11:53:08 PM »
You know when you get a Hallmark card from your Aunt Betty, you open it up, and feign to read the blathering prose of platitudes contained within? You kind of skim it, but it's so lame, you just can't bring yourself to give it serious attention. So you bide your time and wait a few beats before looking up to thank her.  It's not the same thing, but similar to how I feel when I read quotes from Trump - I think he's so ignorant and disingenuous on policy, that when he expresses his vapid opinions, all I see is lame prose. No meaning. And so I just glaze over it and think, so what? Now there's an answer to 'so what?' And that answer is he just might trick people into putting him into the presidency.

Even my dad, the other day, emailed me something to the effect of why I should vote for Trump. His argument boiled down to Trump bringing in outsiders. (my answer to him: sure, some might be good, others might be CEOs from the oil industry and climate change deniers). Three months ago, my dad hated Trump.   (Yes my Drumpfinator is on.)

My head hurts.
Adaptation and desensitization are trump's friends at this point.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2074 on: June 14, 2016, 04:39:57 AM »
You know when you get a Hallmark card from your Aunt Betty, you open it up, and feign to read the blathering prose of platitudes contained within? You kind of skim it, but it's so lame, you just can't bring yourself to give it serious attention. So you bide your time and wait a few beats before looking up to thank her.  It's not the same thing, but similar to how I feel when I read quotes from Trump - I think he's so ignorant and disingenuous on policy, that when he expresses his vapid opinions, all I see is lame prose. No meaning. And so I just glaze over it and think, so what? Now there's an answer to 'so what?' And that answer is he just might trick people into putting him into the presidency.

Even my dad, the other day, emailed me something to the effect of why I should vote for Trump. His argument boiled down to Trump bringing in outsiders. (my answer to him: sure, some might be good, others might be CEOs from the oil industry and climate change deniers). Three months ago, my dad hated Trump.   (Yes my Drumpfinator is on.)

My head hurts.

My FIL and GFIL are passionately republicans - the sort that get their news only from Fox and believe (or at least a receptive to) many of the conspiracy-theory whacko-ness like Obama's birth certificate is fake and Foster's death wasn't really a suicide.
A year ago they were both railing at Trump, disgusted by his rhetoric and talking about how he's not a true republican, couldn't be trusted, and would be dangerous as a leader.

When we visited two weeks ago they both basically said "well, it looks like we're going to vote for Trump."  Their identity is so tied to being republican that they can't consider voting for anyone else, and besides "Hillary is crooked" (seriously, they both independently used the very word that Trump has been branding her with).  When we asked how Clinton was "crooked" they gave very vague answers a-la-Trump about how there's "been a lot of funny stuff the media won't even tell us about".  so we asked them to elaborate "oh, stuff you wouldn't even believe - they're going to indite her any day not, and it's going to go a lot deeper than Benghazi."

We asked about specific policy proposals we knew they didn't agree with like building a wall (oh, it'll never actually happen so why both discussing it) or not altering SS and Medicaid (no one's been able to change that anyway) they seem to not care about the gap between his proposals and their core beliefs.

Perhaps most interesting was FIL's continual defense that Trump "will put some really talented people in high-level positions, people who aren't just career politicians.  Those are the people who will really get stuff done."



forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2075 on: June 14, 2016, 06:56:53 AM »
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.
Trump is still a private citizen.  If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.

If Trump should ever become President, then he should have to put up with the same First Amendment freedom of the press issues as all previous presidents.  E.g., see http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/ and http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97771/ (although the latter would seem to give Trump more leeway than I'd like to see).

I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.

That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2076 on: June 14, 2016, 07:00:58 AM »
Perhaps most interesting was FIL's continual defense that Trump "will put some really talented people in high-level positions, people who aren't just career politicians.  Those are the people who will really get stuff done."

Did they say he's going to appoint some "top people" who are going to be "fantastic" and do a "tremendous" job and make "really great deals" so we can be "winning"?

He has a legitimate shot at winning.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2077 on: June 14, 2016, 07:13:20 AM »

I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.

That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).

That brings to mind a sereis of questions I'd really like to hear Trump answer: 
Qs: what would be the role of the media inside a Trump administration? How would you control which media outlets had access to you and the White House (i.e. press clearance, daily media briefings, direct Q/A sessions)?
Would your administration be more or less transparent than the Obama administration?

while on the subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

MrStash2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2078 on: June 14, 2016, 08:43:42 AM »

I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.

That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).

That brings to mind a sereis of questions I'd really like to hear Trump answer: 
Qs: what would be the role of the media inside a Trump administration? How would you control which media outlets had access to you and the White House (i.e. press clearance, daily media briefings, direct Q/A sessions)?
Would your administration be more or less transparent than the Obama administration?

while on the subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

Just so everyone is clear, Jeff Bozo owns the Washington Post, he is the owner Amazon, and he bought the Washington Post specifically so he can have an outlet to voice his political agenda. His agenda is H1B visas which allow these tech companies to bring in immigrants and be paid trash over Americans.

Maybe these people just need better advisors or something, because in CURRENT YEAR you cannot just buy a newspaper and expect people won't think you will use it to pump out your own propaganda. He's living 30 years ago.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2079 on: June 14, 2016, 09:04:13 AM »

Just so everyone is clear, Jeff Bozo owns the Washington Post, he is the owner Amazon, and he bought the Washington Post specifically so he can have an outlet to voice his political agenda. His agenda is H1B visas which allow these tech companies to bring in immigrants and be paid trash over Americans.

Maybe these people just need better advisors or something, because in CURRENT YEAR you cannot just buy a newspaper and expect people won't think you will use it to pump out your own propaganda. He's living 30 years ago.

I think that has been made abundantly clear.  In every article printed in the WaPo that mentions amazon.com or Jeff Bezos they clearly state that he owns the Washington Post.

WHile he has written OpEd pieces about the need for more H1B visas, I personally do not detect him having any more of a 'heavy hand' on the reporting than when the Graham family owned the Post.

Edit:  corrected spelling.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 10:25:49 AM by nereo »

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2080 on: June 14, 2016, 09:40:20 AM »
Perhaps most interesting was FIL's continual defense that Trump "will put some really talented people in high-level positions, people who aren't just career politicians.  Those are the people who will really get stuff done."

Did they say he's going to appoint some "top people" who are going to be "fantastic" and do a "tremendous" job and make "really great deals" so we can be "winning"?

He has a legitimate shot at winning.
Don't forget, we have never even heard of them, but they will be better than the best guys we have heard of

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2081 on: June 14, 2016, 09:50:06 AM »
Bezos. Jeff Bezos.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2082 on: June 14, 2016, 10:26:30 AM »
Bezos. Jeff Bezos.

Thank you.  Correction made (unintentional error of responding to another's spelling. )

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2083 on: June 14, 2016, 12:35:27 PM »
I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.

That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).
I generally agree with most of that, except the part about being held to the same standard as a sitting president.  Currently neither Trump nor Clinton controls any part of "the government" - when one of them does, then that person should be held to a standard different than either is now.

And yes, how each acts between now and November can and should have an effect on the election outcome.  Don't know how much their respective reactions to Orlando will change the opinions of those who already have a preference....

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2084 on: June 14, 2016, 01:32:12 PM »
Renewed efforts to expand gun control and issues of domestic security usually shift undecided voters towards the right...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2085 on: June 14, 2016, 02:41:22 PM »
Renewed efforts to expand gun control and issues of domestic security usually shift undecided voters towards the right...

Scott Adams blogged about this kind of play some months ago, it was a dangerous play, but this even might be close enough...

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141545899386/sleeper-persuasion-with-a-trigger

Quote
Likewise, Trump chose border security as his signature issue in part because there was a 100% chance voters would see another terror attack somewhere during the election cycle. Any attack would serve as a trigger to activate the persuasion. Unfortunately, ISIS has provided three triggers already in the past year, with Belgium being the latest.

If you’re paying attention to the news, you know that Trump just doubled-down on waterboarding (and maybe worse) because of the Belgium attack. And the world just shrugged it off this time. Every time something blows up, Trump starts looking less crazy. That’s sleeper persuasion with a trigger.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series

Quote
4. Force people to see the world in terms of strength and weakness because people are drawn to strength in times of uncertainty.

Given that this latest news fits Trump’s strategy and pattern, I conclude that it was an intentional move under the Master Persuader filter.

But will it work?

It appears that Trump is playing the odds, and smartly, whether you like it or not. ISIS, or its supporters, will certainly strike again. And each time that happens you will try to imagine what can be done about it. And you will only know of one option – the Trump option of shutting down all Muslim immigration for now.

You can hate that option or you can love it. But you probably don’t know of any other plan. Your option for doing something (as opposed to nothing) comes down to Trump’s plan. It is the only plan you know, flawed as it is. And when a monster attacks, you escape through the door that exists, not the one you wish existed. Advantage, Trump.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2086 on: June 14, 2016, 02:43:25 PM »
And another today....

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145910635956/trumps-muslim-immigration-proposal-update

Quote
My mother often quoted an old-timey saying: “You can get used to hanging if you do it long enough.”

That’s good homespun psychology. Humans will see nearly anything as normal if they are exposed to it long enough. I’m sure ISIS fighters feel they are acting in a normal way after committing several atrocities in a row. We humans can get used to anything.

Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration until we figure out what is going on. Remember how radical that sounded months ago? Remember how – even if you liked the idea – it sounded outrageously racist, even though Islam is open to all races? To most American ears, Trump’s proposed immigration ban sounded inappropriate and far-fetched EVEN IF YOU LIKED IT.

Time passes.

Innocent people die.

And as humans do, we get used to whatever is in our environment, no matter how outrageous it once seemed. And we’ve all been living for months with the idea of Trump’s temporary Muslim immigration ban. We’re getting used to it.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2087 on: June 14, 2016, 02:47:36 PM »

Would your administration be more or less transparent than the Obama administration?


How the hell could it be less?  Repeal the 1st Amendment?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2088 on: June 14, 2016, 05:40:22 PM »
Pulling back to the theme of the thread....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-zaretsky/why-hillarys-emails-matte_b_10426496.html?yptr=yahoo

Now Hillary is taking flak for her email server from the left.  Drip.  Drip.  Drip.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2089 on: June 15, 2016, 03:55:08 PM »
So the current raw average on RCP has Clinton up by 5.5 percentage points, which is also about the average of all polls taken since the beginning of the year (5.8% using an unweighted average).  My guess is that this corrected for the bump that occurred after Trump essentially secured the nomination.

Interestingly, if we use the 2014 Cook Partisan Voter Index and simply assume each state will vote for Clinton at 5.5 percentage points more, then Clinton would win 368 electoral votes to Trump's 170.  I think the next state in line would be Georgia, which has a PVI of R+6, then Arizona and Montana at R+7.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2090 on: June 15, 2016, 07:03:00 PM »
So the current raw average on RCP has Clinton up by 5.5 percentage points, which is also about the average of all polls taken since the beginning of the year (5.8% using an unweighted average).  My guess is that this corrected for the bump that occurred after Trump essentially secured the nomination.

Interestingly, if we use the 2014 Cook Partisan Voter Index and simply assume each state will vote for Clinton at 5.5 percentage points more, then Clinton would win 368 electoral votes to Trump's 170.  I think the next state in line would be Georgia, which has a PVI of R+6, then Arizona and Montana at R+7.

We shall see.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2091 on: June 16, 2016, 06:11:06 AM »
I think the only way Hillary Clinton doesn't win is if the President allows an indictment to go through against her and she's replaced by somebody like Biden at the convention. Or John Kerry, for that matter. I don't like Biden or Kerry, but I think they care about America in a way Clinton doesn't.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2092 on: June 16, 2016, 08:45:18 AM »
I think the only way Hillary Clinton doesn't win is if the President allows an indictment to go through against her and she's replaced by somebody like Biden at the convention. Or John Kerry, for that matter. I don't like Biden or Kerry, but I think they care about America in a way Clinton doesn't.
I think she's most likely to win. But she could certainly lose without anything like the above happening. She is so widely hated, and Trump is such a wild card, that anything could happen. Clinton is a terrible candidate and Trump has been very surprisingly good at running for office. Major news events could tip the race. And turnout may be very low (which favors Republicans).

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2093 on: June 17, 2016, 03:15:49 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2094 on: June 17, 2016, 03:37:31 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2095 on: June 17, 2016, 04:11:06 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

Personally, I don't know that Trump would be a better president than Clinton, but I do have a pretty good idea what kind of president that Clinton would be, and I know I don't want that.  Trump is a wild card, and compared to Clinton, that's feels like a good bet right now.  I still won't be voting for him, though, because I don't vote for lesser evils.

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2096 on: June 17, 2016, 04:21:39 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2097 on: June 17, 2016, 04:28:34 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2098 on: June 17, 2016, 05:03:10 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2099 on: June 17, 2016, 05:06:06 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 05:17:31 PM by Mac_MacGyver »