Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Yeah its all those people who turn up to vote, Such problems they cause by making the wrong votes /s
Probably. But if he did, he'd have some self-serving excuse-- he's already mewling about how the election is going to be rigged.
My dad used to say that ninety percent of elections are a choice between two crooks, two idiots, or one of each. This election is different. We have two crooks, one of whom (Trump) is also an idiot. Trump's verbal hijinks have, regrettably, prevented much attention from being focused on his financial hijinks.
Expect Hillary to win.
Expect Hillary to win.
How is Hillary a crook?
My mother constantly likes to inform me of all the furniture they had to return to the White House.
Hillary wins in a landslide. Trump has turned Georgia into a swing state, for crying out loud.
Hillary wins in a landslide. Trump has turned Georgia into a swing state, for crying out loud.
Well will Today's terrorist attack in India change votes? Will anyone use that for political advantage?
Crooks aren't honest up front about what they took, and they don't return items in short order when it's discovered they were taken mistakenly.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/
The claim that this makes Hillary a crook is a perfectly good example of prejudice/bias.
Anything else out there supposedly making Hillary a crook?
I had to look this up when I saw you mention it. I hadn't heard anything about it, and I talked with two of my friends in India this very afternoon. They didn't mention it either. They just talked about the festival of Teej and the movies opening up this weekend.
This attack seems to be an Indian domestic issue. The northeast portion of India has always been a spot of political unrest among ethnic groups....I highly doubt this will affect the US election. If the Rio Olympics are attacked, however, it would definitely get some attention from the candidates and voters.
Oh, plenty. There's Benghazi, the emails, corruption within the Clinton Foundation, and people connected to the Clintons that have died over the years (including recently), resulting in a massive conspiracy among the right wing that they are somehow responsible or the deaths are meant to cover up secrets.
They will ALWAYS call Hillary a crook. And no amount of fact-checking will exonerate her, because fact-checkers are "liberal and biased" or paid by the Clintons.
I'm not kidding. The hate goes deep.
I know the hate goes deep, and I'm familiar with the rumor mill.
I was more interested in the stuff that survives unbiased fact-checking.
That's the point....to the people that view her as a criminal, there is no "unbiased fact checking." It's all biased. All of the fact-checkers are liars that are paid by her, or support her because they're "liberal."
All politicians do sleazy things, tell half-truths and sacrifice their 100% integrity to the dealmaking process. Hillary is no different...and she has 40 years of dirty laundry. But to the people that chant "hang the bitch!" and "Lock her up!", she is some sort of mafia don that is the worst political criminal since Richard Nixon. And no amount of fact checking, or filling in the missing context, will convince them that what they've been seeing in chain emails and rambling posts on Facebook (in all caps) is even partially untrue.
Remember, these are the people that circulated emails in 2009 with pictures of Obama in the East Room of the White House saying that he was "redecorating the White House to look more Middle Eastern." You can tell them all day that those ugly gold curtains had been there for decades, but to them, they were "Muslim colors" and proof he was a terrorist sympathizer.
Yes, I remember.
OK thank you that's so odd. They have huge TV screens when you come off the train here in my city and they were showing footage of the attack on there this morning and making it out to be some kind of huge terrorist thing.
What?????????
So all the Bhengazhi stuff and "fast and furious" guns was all true?
So all the Bhengazhi stuff and "fast and furious" guns was all true?
You understand that that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as unbiased fact checking, right?
Of course. I'm no conspiracy theorist.
My dad is one of these people, though, and I gave up trying to tell him the stuff he was seeing in chain emails and heard on right wing talk radio about Obama wasn't true, citing fact-checkers. All he said each time was "They're all liberal." My aunt is the same way. And my cousins. They all talk as if Hillary is a mafia don. It gives me a headache.
And if you look at Facebook and the Fox News comment sections, the "bubble of unreality" extends far and wide. And because of that, the story never goes away.
Real Trump quotes set to images of Zapp Brannigan, with apologies to Brannigan, who is by far a more qualified Presidential candidate than Trump.
http://imgur.com/gallery/1jhfo
http://imgur.com/gallery/1jhfo
Last edited:
What I find amazing is the level of trust people place in things like Fox News... It's kind of staggering.
Yeah, it is. The only thing I can think of is that they feel that Fox is "on their side" as a bulwark against all the other networks that either lean left or are firmly positioned left. So they eat it up, and buy into the lie that it's "fair and balanced." What's clear is that Roger Ailes created a pretty masterful system of sprinkling just enough "straight talk" into the relentless conservative slant so there's just a glimmer of credibility in their reporting and commentary. It gives their viewers the feeling that they are watching the news framed exactly the way they want. Yes, I know the other networks do this too, but Fox is the worst offender because the whole tone, including the information displayed on the screen, is meant to fuel and reaffirm the anger that the viewers feel. "How dare Obama destroy the country?" combined with "How dare the other leftist networks lie to me? This is the truth!" Fox is also the worst offender because of their "fair and balanced" claim. If they'd just stop lying to everyone and call themselves the "conservative news network," they wouldn't lose any face, or viewers.
People that have worked there and ended up leaving have written essays and articles about what it was like, and they dispel the "fair and balanced" claim pretty strongly. But like the conspiracy theories I mentioned, if you say any of this to a Fox News devotee, they say you're a liar, or those people are lying, or have an axe to grind against the organization. And then they trot out the line that Fox anchors love to parrot all the time: "Fox has the highest ratings by far!"
That proves nothing except that old people and angry conservatives like watching cable TV "news" more than other people. I certainly don't watch television news; I haven't for years. I read stories and opinion from multiple sources, and if something intrigues me, I read a fact-check of it if I can find one.
I will say that there is a striking difference between the news today and the news of the 1960's from clips I've seen online and on documentaries. Those old guys seemed to cut through the bullshit, go into more depth, and tell it straight. Maybe I'm mistaken and there's always been a "liberal slant" like my dad tells me, but it's the impression I get. I certainly don't have the urge to vomit into my mouth....unlike every time I watch Fox News for any period longer than 15 seconds.
- Status
Similar threads
