[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Dotini]

 

[Tornado]

Trump's hair isn't anywhere near that good.

 

[mustafur]

More than CNN?

I would say yes, because you will be hard found to find anything that even challenges Hillary.

CNN atleast try to look Partial when they hosted debates with Hillary, even though they eventually went light on her in every single one.

When Bernie and Hillary where still competing for the nomination Washington Post did 16 Negative articles on Bernie in 16 hours which is insane.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...n-16-negative-stories-bernie-sanders-16-hours

 

[Sanji Himura]

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will resign as head of the DNC at the end of the convention. Party leaders revealed today.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because they have a moral obligation to be unbiased. The fact people have allowed them to do things and make such grotesque networks as Fox and NBC be so politically divided is an issue.

I think you can credit (or discredit as the case may be) Ronald Reagan for that. When the FCC rolled back the Fairness Doctrine during Reagan's second term, it paved the way for media networks presenting a narrow focus in presenting news and information to the public.

 

[Milouse]

Because they have a moral obligation to be unbiased. The fact people have allowed them to do things and make such grotesque networks as Fox and NBC be so politically divided is an issue.

I won't arg against the grotesque word here, but that wasn't my point at all.
"moral obligation to be unbiased"? Certainly not. The ethical obligation to pursue objectivity, yes.
The fact that Fox News has brought ethic lower than any mainstream media before doesn't change the idea that a human being is biased by nature because of culture, personal life and own moral. Hence, even the media with the best intentions should be read with a critical mind.

 

[stonesfan129]

I won't arg against the grotesque word here, but that wasn't my point at all.
"moral obligation to be unbiased"? Certainly not. The ethical obligation to pursue objectivity, yes.
The fact that Fox News has brought ethic lower than any mainstream media before doesn't change the idea that a human being is biased by nature because of culture, personal life and own moral. Hence, even the media with the best intentions should be read with a critical mind.

Fox News has not lowered the bar any more than anyone else. People just like to complain about Fox News because historically Fox News has supported the Republican Party. It's the same people who complain about Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media outlets.

 

[Milouse]

People just like to complain about Fox News because historically Fox News has supported the Republican Party

No, because they basically pursue a goal of disinformation.

Excerpt:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15487...ews:_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed

With Trump, Republicans reap what they sow for decades.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I won't arg against the grotesque word here, but that wasn't my point at all.
"moral obligation to be unbiased"? Certainly not. The ethical obligation to pursue objectivity, yes.
The fact that Fox News has brought ethic lower than any mainstream media before doesn't change the idea that a human being is biased by nature because of culture, personal life and own moral. Hence, even the media with the best intentions should be read with a critical mind.

Human nature or not doesn't matter, you can have a system be far more impartial than it's current state, and at one time it was. There are plenty of places where I must put my personal bias to rest, so just because people are human with "opinions" doesn't grant them immunity from the lies and division they help set.

Also as I've said prior yes Fox is awful, but NBC through MSNBC and CNBC have don't just as bad. The only reason they don't get called out nearly as often by some here, is when they do it they actually sound coherent as to when their rival does it, it sounds silly and paranoid. Yet bull:censored: is bull:censored: no matter how you sell it.

 

[Milouse]

just because people are human with "opinions" doesn't grant them immunity from the lies and division they help set

The subject was CNN in the first place, and we slipped to Fox News and dishonesty.
I'm 100% agree with what you just wrote here, but it does not change that people have unconscious bias that we'll need be aware of, and that is why it does matter. It's indeed a negligible matter in the case of Fox News (i never watch NBC network).

 

[A2K78]

Its quite amazing how Sanders all but betrayed his followers by endorsing and supporting an individual that goes against his beliefs. Then again I'm not surprised giving the fact that Sanders was never principled to begin with.

 

[mustafur]

Its quite amazing how Sanders all but betrayed his followers by endorsing and supporting an individual that goes against his beliefs. Then again I'm not surprised giving the fact that Sanders was never principled to begin with.

I wouldn't call it betrayed, He was able to change alot of Hillarys Policys going forward and was able to get the super Hillary Bias DNC chairman sacked for someone more friendly to his stance, all of which only came at the cost of Endorsing Satan.

 

[Milouse]

Its quite amazing how Sanders all but betrayed his followers by endorsing and supporting an individual that goes against his beliefs. Then again I'm not surprised giving the fact that Sanders was never principled to begin with.

That's your view. I would have been angry at Sanders if he'd take more time to endorse Clinton.
It's just the application of a logical order:
1. Sanders
2. Clinton
3. Trying to wake up
4. Looking for a rope
5. Trump

See, Clinton is P2, Trump P5.

 

[A2K78]

I wouldn't call it betrayed, He was able to change alot of Hillarys Policys going forward and was able to get the super Hillary Bias DNC chairman sacked for someone more friendly to his stance, all of which only came at the cost of Endorsing Satan.

Not a thing about Hillary let alone the where the party stands has changed. As for the chairman being being sacked it's nothing but trying to save face.

On another note:


http://addictinginfo.org/2016/04/26...hat-bernie-betray-the-democratic-party-video/

Trump must be having the last laugh now

Btw if Sanders was truly principled he would've taken the very stand Ron Paul took and not endorse anyone.

 

[mustafur]

That's your view. I would have been angry at Sanders if he'd take more time to endorse Clinton.
It's just the application of a logical order:
1. Sanders
2. Clinton
3. Trying to wake up
4. Looking for a rope
5. Trump

See, Clinton is P2, Trump P5.

Clinton is way too high on your list.

Not a thing about Hillary let alone the where the party stands has changed. As for the chairman being being sacked it's nothing but trying to save face.

On another note:


http://addictinginfo.org/2016/04/26...hat-bernie-betray-the-democratic-party-video/

Trump must be having the last laugh now

Like usual you didn't look, first link when typed into google:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11871794/bernie-sanders-2016

Also What did I Tell you: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...y-trying-to-get-dnc-chairwoman-fired-n2176060

 

[mustafur]

delete.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trump must be having the last laugh now

Unless you're in a very hot car it's hard not to laugh at a Trump. Vicars are the funniest, of course.

 

[TheBook]

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that both parties are trying as hard as they can to lose the election. Right now it appears that Clinton's camp has the upper hand; let's see what Trump can come back with.

 

[ryzno]

Has anyone watched Hillary's America The secret History of the Democratic Party?
Trailer:


I read some reviews, I'm going to wait till it hits Netflix or something.

 

[stonesfan129]

No, because they basically pursue a goal of disinformation.

Excerpt:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154875/the_science_of_fox_news:_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed

With Trump, Republicans reap what they sow for decades.

Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I figured Trump would get a bit of a bump after the convention but this is a bit unexpected:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

Note: This was the headline story about 2 hours ago on CNN, now it's not even linked on the front page. Instead, the second leading story is, "Is there an unfair Hillary Standard?", while at the same time running a headline linking the recent email Wikileak to Trump and the Russians on the say so of a Hillary campaign staffer whose evidence is un-named experts and his reasoning is, "it's not a coincidence". No unfair Trump standard there.

 

[huskeR32]

Its quite amazing how Sanders all but betrayed his followers by endorsing and supporting an individual that goes against his beliefs. Then again I'm not surprised giving the fact that Sanders was never principled to begin with.

I didn't understand this sentiment when Johnnypenso said it two weeks ago, and I don't understand it now. Yes, Bernie disagrees with Hillary on some things. But he disagrees with Trump on almost everything.

By what logic should he be expected to do anything other than endorse the remaining candidate who most closely aligns with his views?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I didn't understand this sentiment when Johnnypenso said it two weeks ago, and I don't understand it now. Yes, Bernie disagrees with Hillary on some things. But he disagrees with Trump on almost everything.

By what logic should he be expected to do anything other than endorse the remaining candidate who most closely aligns with his views?

Here is where I think that he explained it wrong, and that is throughout his entire campaign, Sanders attacked Wall Street. Hillary, by taking thousands of dollars from there as speaking fees, became a convenient target for the socialist left.

By endorsing Clinton, Sanders basically betrayed everything he stood for.

 

[huskeR32]

Here is where I think that he explained it wrong, and that is throughout his entire campaign, Sanders attacked Wall Street. Hillary, by taking thousands of dollars from there as speaking fees, became a convenient target for the socialist left.

By endorsing Clinton, Sanders basically betrayed everything he stood for.

None of this gets to the point of what I asked. Again,

Yes, Bernie disagrees with Hillary on some things.

The Wall Street question is obviously the most notable of those things they don't see eye-to-eye on.

That has absolutely no bearing at all on this:

But he disagrees with Trump on almost everything.

My question still remains completely unanswered:

By what logic should he be expected to do anything other than endorse the remaining candidate who most closely aligns with his views?

--

By endorsing Clinton, Sanders basically betrayed everything he stood for.

No. By endorsing Clinton, Sanders betrayed some of the things he stood for. If he endorsed Trump, a statement like "betrayed everything" would finally be more factual than laughably dramatic and hyperbolic.

 

[Tornado]

Yes, Bernie disagrees with Hillary on some things. But he disagrees with Trump on almost everything.

I don't think endorsing Trump was ever on the cards to begin with.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think endorsing Trump was ever on the cards to begin with.

I'm sure that Bernie understands that not endorsing Hillary could very well come to be viewed by many as a tacit endorsement of Trump. The pragmatic move here is for him to explicitly endorse the remaining candidate that he would prefer to see in the White House.

It's what nearly every notable candidate has ever done, why is Bernie suddenly being expected to act any differently? Especially when doing so could have ramifications that undermine his own views?

 

[Tornado]

It's what nearly every notable candidate has ever done, why is Bernie suddenly being expected to act any differently? Especially when doing so could have ramifications that undermine his own views?

That's a very good question for people who supported Bernie before he threw in with Hilary, instead of someone like Sanji Himura or Johnnypenso (or Joey D) who are just commenting on the very real disillusionment that followed. It seems at least a vocal portion of Sanders' supporters wanted him to drag it out to the end, since they didn't seem to think that he was like any previous candidate.

Why don't you ask them instead?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Just a general question.. It seems to me that this whole election thing has been dragging on for quite some time, has this been a protracted election so far? Or, is it about normal?

 

[Danoff]

Just a general question.. It seems to me that this whole election thing has been dragging on for quite some time, has this been a protracted election so far? Or, is it about normal?

The US government has been slowly transitioning into a continual election cycle. We take a short time off from the previous election before discussing the next election. I look forward to the time where our politicians don't actually try to accomplish anything other than getting elected - as usually anything they accomplish is worse than having not done anything at all.

 

[A2K78]

Here is where I think that he explained it wrong, and that is throughout his entire campaign, Sanders attacked Wall Street. Hillary, by taking thousands of dollars from there as speaking fees, became a convenient target for the socialist left.

By endorsing Clinton, Sanders basically betrayed everything he stood for.

This and a lot more especially on foreign policy.

@huskeR32

There is a reason why Ron Paul doesn't support Trump despite sharing certain foreign policy views and it come down to the fact that an endorsement would be a betrayal of is his other core views. Likewise if Sanders was truly principled to his views then he wouldn't have endorsed Clinton but instead he betrayed them.