[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Tornado]

I love how questioning data is anti-intellectualism. An apparently serious graph by political analysts and not at all something that looks like what a middle school student would make in Powerpoint is put out with a data point that says "Pants on fire" and everyone is just supposed to take it at face value.

 

[Dotini]

I love how questioning data is anti-intellectualism. An apparently serious graph by political analysts and not at all something that looks like what a middle school student would make in Powerpoint is put out with a data point that says "Pants on fire" and everyone is just supposed to take it at face value.

Don't worry about it. It's trivial garbage, not worth your breath arguing about.

The latest polls show HRC dropping ~10 points after news of the FBI reopening its criminal investigation of her. THAT's news. Earth shattering, ear-splitting and gut wrenching if you're a neoliberal or neocon. Their wails of fear and pain are music to my ears. A schadenfreudian delight.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Perfectly logical explanation.

1. He covers THREE Presidential Elections in this chart, not just this one. That is why you are seeing someone like Romney or McCain in the chart because they ran against Obama in 2008 and 2012 respectively.

2. If there is ANY cherry-picking involved, it is done on Politifact's end. The chart covers every candidate since 2008 with 50 or more recorded statements on Politifact. The only reason why Martin O'Malley is not on the chart at all is because he didn't meet the required number to be included (O'Malley had 18 recorded statements on Politifact as of the time of writing).

Which I saw, and is fine but still skews statistical analysis of the situation. For example it has currently been used as a conclusive data tool for the current political election, but in doing so deviates from the creators own reasoning for building the chart. Which is to prove that lies and politics go hand in hand which is the most general take way from it.

Doesn't weigh nor can weigh the magnitude of the lies recorded and decided as lies there is no explanation for that other than a reminder that it should be taken into consideration. Also why not build a chart that uses candidates from this election alone, I understand why it wasn't now but still wish it had been done in instead of an update of the original, but that's probably splitting hairs.

The point is the use of said data and it's intended purpose seemed to be missed, and the overall commentary detracts from a discussion on those of this election cycle.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I love how questioning data is anti-intellectualism. An apparently serious graph by political analysts and not at all something that looks like what a middle school student would make in Powerpoint is put out with a data point that says "Pants on fire" and everyone is just supposed to take it at face value.

I remember reading somewhere (and I wish that I had saved the source, because it was a really good one) that the success of the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver is down to the way they blend serious political commentary with humour, which makes the subject matter more accessible to young people when it can usually be drier than overdone turkey. Especially in countries like America and Australia, where the political process happens in a city built as a political hub and so is largely removed from the rest of the nation, which is a barrier to people trying to engage with politics. So long as it's factual, anything that gets more young people involved in the political process can only be a good thing.

 

[mister dog]

 

[Famine]

Pants on fire

Why do so many people say this anyway? It's "Liar, liar, bum's on fire" and derives from a curse of haemorrhoids upon the untrustworthy.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Which I saw, and is fine but still skews statistical analysis of the situation. For example it has currently been used as a conclusive data tool for the current political election, but in doing so deviates from the creators own reasoning for building the chart. Which is to prove that lies and politics go hand in hand which is the most general take way from it.

Just because everyone else interprets the data differently, it certainly doesn't deviate from the intent of the chart, not at all. After all, this is a simple informative chart. The analysis and interpretations would have to come from an outside third party unless you are willing to do the psychobabble yourself in which case you may find yourself adding 2+2 and getting five, as the rest of your post may indicate.

Doesn't weigh nor can weigh the magnitude of the lies recorded and decided as lies there is no explanation for that other than a reminder that it should be taken into consideration.

That responsibility fell on Politifact, not him, as they provided the base data. It was not his responsibility to double check their research into a specific claim.

Also why not build a chart that uses candidates from this election alone, I understand why it wasn't now but still wish it had been done in instead of an update of the original, but that's probably splitting hairs.

Sample size, primarily. If we took just the 14 candidates that ran this year, the sample size would be considerably smaller than if we added people who were rumored to run (Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, which would make 16) which in turn would be smaller than those who ran during Obama's two terms. Whether or not you like it, in an informative chart, you have to get the most sample data possible. In this case, the choice would be to make the 14 candidates claim data expand to all time which isn't really logical to analyze or expand the number of candidates, which is what he opted here.

The point is the use of said data and it's intended purpose seemed to be missed, and the overall commentary detracts from a discussion on those of this election cycle.

No. I think that the intent is perfectly clear. We have candidates who would lie more just to get elected compared to past Presidential elections.

 

[nobuffalo]

Why do so many people say this anyway? It's "Liar, liar, bum's on fire" and derives from a curse of haemorrhoids upon the untrustworthy.

Because as a grade schooler on the bus if you say bum you get your ass kicked.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just because everyone else interprets the data differently, it certainly doesn't deviate from the intent of the chart, not at all. After all, this is a simple informative chart. The analysis and interpretations would have to come from an outside third party unless you are willing to do the psychobabble yourself in which case you may find yourself adding 2+2 and getting five, as the rest of your post may indicate.

Sure it does, if someone is using said chart to prove without a doubt that Hillary one, isn't much of a liar and two Trump lies far more often, as reasons for voting...

That's an issue because the chart isn't intended to prove necessarily that Hillary is all that honest compared to Trump, rather that they're all liars and some just lie less then the others. The author even reminds people as I said that they should consider the magnitude of these lies, something the data can't do. So sure Hillary let's say lies once for every three lies Trump tells, but she may very well be telling lies that are many times worse for that one compared to three.

That responsibility fell on Politifact, not him, as they provided the base data. It was not his responsibility to double check their research into a specific claim.

It is if your planning to publish a reliable source of information, if I run tests in my niche of study and have bad data or used bad data and don't double check to make sure bad things happen. So I don't think it's too much to ask for the same regard in respect to objective journalism. Also why did he simply use politifacts? I'm guessing it was due to cutting down time between sourcing potentially non-transparent groups like the Times and Post. As well as being able to see how data was collected.

Sample size, primarily. If we took just the 14 candidates that ran this year, the sample size would be considerably smaller than if we added people who were rumored to run (Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, which would make 16) which in turn would be smaller than those who ran during Obama's two terms. Whether or not you like it, in an informative chart, you have to get the most sample data possible. In this case, the choice would be to make the 14 candidates claim data expand to all time which isn't really logical to analyze or expand the number of candidates, which is what he opted here.

Then you clearly don't get it, why would those who were rumored be even a considerable thought, and that's if this was actually geared toward this election, which it wasn't. However, you arguing about it and others using it solely in regards to this election doesn't do the overall justice of the objective. The most sample data possible would be the actual number of sourced quotes not the number of people attached to the quotes. It could be just Hillary and Trump and that'd be fine so long as the sample size was of decent measure to get smaller margin of error. However, since this is borderline subjective in some areas that's hard to do in the first place.

No. I think that the intent is perfectly clear. We have candidates who would lie more just to get elected compared to past Presidential elections.

...that's not true at all McCain is much higher than Hillary and he hasn't been a presidential thought since he lost in '08.

This all detracts from the main point I raised and other have since arguing this, and the reason I originally defended you, which is this anti-intellectualism. My point is this isn't something so cut and dry that you can't question it, I'm guessing you no longer agree with your original argument?

 

[Milouse]

Ignorance? I questioned the chart and stats, you failed to actually give me any answers.

I used "ignorance of the subject", there is no offence to be taken here since you were asking questions earlier and i was answering to a usage of these questions as "arguments".

Have you any idea how studies and graphs are supposed to work? How journalism is supposed to work?

Yes, from my "Computing applied to Sciences" cursus at University to my 15 years spent in Journalism, not mentioning my assiduous reading of scientific literature for the last 30 years. Which shouldn't weight anything past the end of this sentence - i'm just answering your question.

1) Where are the numbers? We're given "has graded more than 50" and some percentages. Nothing else, there's nothing saying how many total statements from each candidate nor how many fit in each category. Again for all we know he may have very well done a fair unbiased job or he may have taken 100 articles of Hillary saying that she's married to a guy named Bill into consideration.

The graph assumes that you either know what Politifact is (and i genuinely believed it was known by almost everyone here - so much talk and not so many consideration for facts, after all), and its methods; or either you don't and can read it to Politifact site, since this document is a full web page that can't reasonably fit at the bottom of the graph.

2) No sources linked to this graph. All that anyone has come up with is "search Politifact" which does nothing as a) that doesn't prove what articles were or weren't counted and b) the duty of proof is on the one making the claim or doing the study.

No. If i make a visual representation, of let say, the quantity of wikipedia articles per language, i don't have to prove that every entry is a legitimate one as this is handle by wikipedia in the first place, and we make the postulat that their data are reliable in regard to the scope of the representation we're making.
Politifacts reliability doesn't involve a burden of proof of any kind, since it consists of hundreds of claims that involve proof at some point.
Asking for the proof that Politifact is right or wrong, is like asking for a proof that Justice of a country is right or wrong in its judgements. Yet, we can assume that Germany Justice does a better job than North Korea Justice based on their respective standards. Politifact has high standards, and that what we take here.

3) The "study" itself is completely flawed. When you are doing a study on anything you need a control of some sort. In this case that would be the number of statements for each candidate. That's not what happened though as he even said he counted 171 for Hillary and 111 for Trump.

It's not even a study, it's a visual representation of a set of data. It represents what it said it represents, there is no flaw at all.

If I had turned something like that in for a project whether it's school or a job I'd have an "F" on the damned thing before it even left my hand.

I would give it an A: reliable source material (PolitiFact does a good job on the long run - it totally deserved its Pulitzer Prize btw), a title that says all in one phrase (unless someone on a forum misread it), and a strong visual appeal that gives an instant lecture of a sheer amount of data. I would give it a A+ if we didn't have to go to source to have the graph date.

I love how questioning data is anti-intellectualism.

The anti-intellectualism is not that, and nobody here made that claim, assuming it would even make any sense considering the meaning of datum.

 

[Northstar]

The graph assumes

There's an old saying, when you assume something, you make an ASS out of U and ME. He's a journalist (and so are you apparently), if you are going to assume anything it should be that the people that will be looking at whatever you are working on aren't very knowledgeable on the subject.

that you either know what Politifact is (and i genuinely believed it was known by almost everyone here - so much talk and not so many consideration for facts, after all), and its methods; or either you don't and can read it to Politifact site, since this document is a full web page that can't reasonably fit at the bottom of the graph.

I never said Politifact isn't trustworthy, just that saying "I got all my stats from Politifact" doesn't really cut it.

No. If i make a visual representation, of let say, the quantity of wikipedia articles per language, i don't have to prove that every entry is a legitimate one as this is handle by wikipedia in the first place, and we make the postulat that their data are reliable in regard to the scope of the representation we're making.
Politifacts reliability doesn't involve a burden of proof of any kind, since it consists of hundreds of claims that involve proof at some point.

Of course you wouldn't have to prove every entry is legitimate. But I'd imagine you would at least link to each individual article used.

Asking for the proof that Politifact is right or wrong, is like asking for a proof that Justice of a country is right or wrong in its judgements. Yet, we can assume that Germany Justice does a better job than North Korea Justice based on their respective standards. Politifact has high standards, and that what we take here.

I don't recall taking issue with Politifact as a source.

It's not even a study, it's a visual representation of a set of data. It represents what it said it represents, there is no flaw at all.

Do you mean except for the part where he doesn't actually list what data he used?

I would give it an A: reliable source material (PolitiFact does a good job on the long run - it totally deserved its Pulitzer Prize btw), a title that says all in one phrase (unless someone on a forum misread it), and a strong visual appeal that gives an instant lecture of a sheer amount of data. I would give it a A+ if we didn't have to go to source to have the graph date.

I wish I had you as a teacher, I was always expected to give very exact locations when sourcing things. Just putting "The info came from here" would have made the teacher laugh (and deservedly so).

 

[Sanji Himura]

Sure it does, if someone is using said chart to prove without a doubt that Hillary one, isn't much of a liar and two Trump lies far more often, as reasons for voting...

That's an issue because the chart isn't intended to prove necessarily that Hillary is all that honest compared to Trump, rather that they're all liars and some just lie less then the others. The author even reminds people as I said that they should consider the magnitude of these lies, something the data can't do. So sure Hillary let's say lies once for every three lies Trump tells, but she may very well be telling lies that are many times worse for that one compared to three.

Then that is a problem with the data itself, don't blame him. It relies on snap judgment calls made by media to determine if something is false or true. (I'll explain more below)

It is if your planning to publish a reliable source of information, if I run tests in my niche of study and have bad data or used bad data and don't double check to make sure bad things happen. So I don't think it's too much to ask for the same regard in respect to objective journalism. Also why did he simply use politifacts? I'm guessing it was due to cutting down time between sourcing potentially non-transparent groups like the Times and Post. As well as being able to see how data was collected.

Here's a question, how many lies before you are a liar? If the answer is one, then you are wrong according to Politifact.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Out of the many claims that are out there in the data, if we considered every color in the chart except blue to be an outright lie, then the numbers are still skewed because for starters there isn't an equal representation of the sample size for each candidate and second, it would have required the author to have an understanding of how Politifact chooses their claims, and then apply it to Politifact itself. To put it another way, it would have required the chart's author to cherry-pick claims, in which case it WOULD show his bias just to get an equal representation of the data size.

Then you clearly don't get it, why would those who were rumored be even a considerable thought, and that's if this was actually geared toward this election, which it wasn't.

Because it was the media that perpetuated the rumored candidates. Not us in the forums. If that were the case, then New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would have been included in the chart (as I did source an article claiming his candidacy.)

Furthermore, you have to consider that most of these candidates ran for President more than once. This is the second bite at the apple for Hillary since she did run for president in 2008, and was nearly nominated. I don't necessarily recall how many times Trump himself ran for president before he finally got nominated this year, among many other Republicans.

I guess I'll bottom line it by saying the overall accuracy of the chart is because of the massive scope of the claims that those people have had since 2007, the last time we had a true lame duck president. Many of the candidates that ran in these elections ran more than once before they were nominated and the media perpetuated three candidates because they had prior experience with past elections.

However, you arguing about it and others using it solely in regards to this election doesn't do the overall justice of the objective.

I never stopped questioning The Data. I stopped questioning the chart itself, two different things here. This represents the Congressional Budget Office in a way. Bad data goes in a bad result will surely follow. If you want proof, just look how badly the CBO bungled the Obamacare numbers compared to what we have today.

The most sample data possible would be the actual number of sourced quotes not the number of people attached to the quotes.

As I said earlier, this covered THREE presidential elections, not the listed people's relevance to THIS one. This chart made no secret of that fact.

It could be just Hillary and Trump and that'd be fine so long as the sample size was of decent measure to get smaller margin of error.

True, but when you consider that, as of writing the report, Trump had more claims than Hillary on record, then the problem lied with the data itself, not this guy's methods.

However, since this is borderline subjective in some areas that's hard to do in the first place.

This only applies to the data, not this guy's methods. I would like to see something from him that proves otherwise.

...that's not true at all McCain is much higher than Hillary and he hasn't been a presidential thought since he lost in '08.

We have no way of knowing what method he used to sort the chart's data. He could have drawn names from a hat for all we know.

This all detracts from the main point I raised and other have since arguing this, and the reason I originally defended you, which is this anti-intellectualism.

See above. There is no anti-intellectualism to be had on the chart, just the data itself.

My point is this isn't something so cut and dry that you can't question it, I'm guessing you no longer agree with your original argument?

That's not true. Politifact is biased, the fact that we have more statements from Trump on the site since 2007 than Hillary proves that (by a margin of nearly 1.5 to one). But as I have said earlier, this chart doesn't have anything to be angry against. It exhibited some data from one site, that's all it did. You are the one who is wanting to hang it in absentia for Politifact. There is a difference between questioning the source and shooting the messenger.

 

[Milouse]

The most sample data possible would be the actual number of sourced quotes not the number of people attached to the quotes. It could be just Hillary and Trump and that'd be fine so long as the sample size was of decent measure to get smaller margin of error.

"sample" and "margin of error" have nothing to do with a complete data set like in our case, they are used when we can only read a subset.

There's an old saying, when you assume something, you make an ASS out of U and ME. He's a journalist (and so are you apparently), if you are going to assume anything it should be that the people that will be looking at whatever you are working on aren't very knowledgeable on the subject.

Let me rephrase: the graph assumes the reader has a functional brain.

I never said Politifact isn't trustworthy, just that saying "I got all my stats from Politifact" doesn't really cut it.

Of course you wouldn't have to prove every entry is legitimate. But I'd imagine you would at least link to each individual article used.

Do you mean except for the part where he doesn't actually list what data he used?

I wish I had you as a teacher, I was always expected to give very exact locations when sourcing things. Just putting "The info came from here" would have made the teacher laugh (and deservedly so).

One answer - well, question - for all: at which point do you process the repeated information that the graph does take every entry from the source at its release date and that, therefore, there is no point of listing them since the source is public?

 

[Tornado]

No. If i make a visual representation, of let say, the quantity of wikipedia articles per language, i don't have to prove that every entry is a legitimate one as this is handle by wikipedia in the first place, and we make the postulat that their data are reliable in regard to the scope of the representation we're making.

You can easily postulate that the number of articles Wikipedia has in each language is something that Wikipedia can report and graph without much controversy, since it is literally just counting. Is it a page? Yes? Add one.


It's somewhat more difficult to just assume that the underlying data points of the graph you posted, which are made up of political statements and the subjective breakdown of the truthfulness therein, are as impartially and consistently handled as counting the amount of web pages on a domain are. So when you see a title on a graph that says "who lies more" with little context surrounding it why would it not raise red flags?

That's not true. Politifact is biased, the fact that we have more statements from Trump on the site since 2007 than Hillary proves that (by a margin of nearly 1.5 to one).

Looking over the site for the past thirty minutes or so, I also see an awful lot of fact checking when it comes to a politician claiming another politician said something. So when Hilary makes a tweet saying "look at this dumb thing Trump said" and it turns out that Trump said that dumb thing, she's gets a true; and vice versa. I have to imagine this makes up a decent portion of the "facts" being checked, especially with how long both of these two have been in the public eye and how much Trump shoots his mouth off at everyone who slights him; when I had thought based on how the graph was being presented in this thread that Politifact had more to do with things of much more consequence than schoolyard he said/she said.

As it is that graph reads more like one of those ones that talk about what films every year pass the Bechdel test.

 

[Northstar]

Let me rephrase: the graph assumes the reader has a functional brain.

So people should just take the graphs word for it because it has a semi-reliable source in the title?

there is no point of listing them since the source is public?

But there is a point as we've gone over quite a few times already. I won't post it again as it's available to the public.

You've yet to actually address anything I've brought up, so until than I bid you adieu.

 

[Biggles]

I have no trouble naming HRC a killer. Not one-on-one, mind you, but through her policy of Arab Spring and subsequent regime changes, revolutions and civil wars throughout the middle east and north Africa.

Really? It's Hillary Clinton who is responsible for the Arab Spring, regime change, revolutions & civil wars throughout the middle east & North Africa? You have an extraordinarily high opinion of her influence & ability to direct events around the world.

As I've pointed out before, every US President, since (at least) the Second World War, has meddled extensively in the affairs of foreign countries around the world. Often this took the form of supporting rebels or dictators, or sponsoring coups or counter-coups, or helping foment revolution or civil war. Under your definition every US President should be considered "a killer".

If you really want to label a US politician a killer you might, at least, start with some of the more egregious examples, like LBJ, Nixon & Kissinger in Vietnam - who directed US forces in operations that were directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, many of them civilians. Or how about Bush & Cheney who directed US forces to attack Iraq, a military operation that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them civilians.

Trump is a realist, and a nationalist-populist. Of all the candidates running in 2015-2016, he is the least likely to involve the US in a war, possibly excepting Paul.

Trump isn't a "realist", he's a delusional opportunist. Unlike Clinton, he hasn't yet had the responsibility of directing US foreign policy. But his rhetoric & temperament - he has proved himself incapable of letting even the most insignificant personal slight pass without retaliating - does not bode well for a reasoned, dispassionate foreign policy.

And actually, as history demonstartes again & again, a political leader who is a "nationalist-populist", is the kind of leader that is the most likely to start foreign wars.

 

[McLaren]

Trump isn't a "realist", he's a delusional opportunist. Unlike Clinton, he hasn't yet had the responsibility of directing US foreign policy. But his rhetoric & temperament - he has proved himself incapable of letting even the most insignificant personal slight pass without retaliating - does not bode well for a reasoned, dispassionate foreign policy.

And actually, as history domsonstartes again & again, a political leader who is a "nationalist-populist", is the kind of leader that is the most likely to start foreign wars.

Which continues to be based on his character he has displayed in his campaign. Meanwhile, Hillary has been involved in more than a fair share of reports over this past year covering her tension with Putin. Just a few days ago, Putin was cited as saying,

"Naturally we welcome those who would like to cooperate with us. And we consider it wrong, that we always have to be in conflict with one another, creating existential threats for each other and for the whole world.

"Would Mrs. Clinton delivers on he threats and harsh rhetorics against Russia if she became President? Or will she correct her position against us?"

He then issued what sounded like a horrifying ultimatum to US politicians, saying: "Jeopardising Russian-American relations in order to gain brownie points internally – I consider this to be harmful and counter productive.

"It's not funny anymore. If somebody out there wants confrontation. This is not our choice but this means that there will be problems."

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...-US-Clinton-Trump-world-war-three-fears-video

They don't appear to have video of him giving those words, but in the first video, he does say that Clinton has taken an aggressive stance against Russia and it's been clear for a while now that Putin isn't exactly content with her views on him.

In short, it's really a pointless comparison over which one will take us into war b/c the US appears to be on a lose-lose situation judging on how both sides have handled foreign relations without even being in office yet.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

From the people who brought you HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR: The New York Post has weighed in on the FBI investigation with the headline HAPPY HALLO-WEINER.

Who says print is a dead medium? If you want to revitalise the economy, forget manufacturing - just hire everyone as tabloid headline writers.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

"sample" and "margin of error" have nothing to do with a complete data set like in our case, they are used when we can only read a subset.

Sure it does refer to Tornado's post. How do you margin of error subjective reason between false and pants on fire...

Serious question, cause if I came in reporting on the different loads of a wing in flight and had titles like meh, good, super good...I'd get laughed out of the damn presentation. And that's before I even got to the error propagation of my data sets.

@Sanji Himura your take away is I'm angry because I argued against something I would have presented in my Freshman year at high school? One not angry, at all just feel that these things yet again should be questioned until conclusive or satisfactory explanation is given, the author discredits the charts more than the people defending said charts.

Second I long ago stopped being angry at charade politics, and surely am not going to be angry over it with a person who does or doesn't have a voice in this election. Thing will happen that's that, I just like to interject when I see something blindly defended or inanely defended

 

[Biggles]

Which continues to be based on his character he has displayed in his campaign. Meanwhile, Hillary has been involved in more than a fair share of reports over this past year covering her tension with Putin. Just a few days ago, Putin was cited as saying,

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...-US-Clinton-Trump-world-war-three-fears-video

They don't appear to have video of him giving those words, but in the first video, he does say that Clinton has taken an aggressive stance against Russia and it's been clear for a while now that Putin isn't exactly content with her views on him.

In short, it's really a pointless comparison over which one will take us into war b/c the US appears to be on a lose-lose situation judging on how both sides have handled foreign relations without even being in office yet.

Did you really just post a link to "The Daily Star" to make some kind of point? I was distracted by "Magician strips shocked audience member in sexiest magic trick ever", "Actress strips naked & pours MILK over herself in X-rated Strictly Come Dancing show", Groom has sex with guests at strange wedding party" & Bare boobs bride filmed being groped is not who you thought she was".

Deflection from my two very basic points: HRC doesn't have a particularly "killing" record as US political leaders go, & "populist-nationalist" political leaders have a very bad record when it comes to initiating foreign wars.

 

[McLaren]

Did you really just post a link to "The Daily Star" to make some kind of point? I was distracted by "Magician strips shocked audience member in sexiest magic trick ever", "Actress strips naked & pours MILK over herself in X-rated Strictly Come Dancing show", Groom has sex with guests at strange wedding party" & Bare boobs bride filmed being groped is not who you thought she was".

I linked it because they included a video of Putin himself talking about Hillary's aggression. This is not the the only website publishing the story of Putin claiming he is no longer amused at American politics through every election "jeopardizing Russian-American relations".

Deflection from my two very basic points: HRC doesn't have a particularly "killing" record as US political leaders go, & "populist-nationalist" political leaders have a very bad record when it comes to initiating foreign wars.

Deflection coming from someone who immediately dismissed the link despite video evidence to back up the article.

The point was clearly too far above to grasp since you appear to be easily distracted; preach again about how Trump is the one likely to start conflict because of his stance whilst Hillary continues to poke the US' largest & most dangerous rival. It's pointless thing to bring up for either one right now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

preach again about how Trump is the one likely to start conflict because of his stance

Because his rhetoric and limited understanding of foreign policy comes across as extremely aggressive? Because his diplomatic skills have demonstrably been limited to flinging insults back?

whilst Hillary continues to poke the US' largest & most dangerous rival.

Why is Russia the US's rival? That mentality creates a dangerous playing field in itself. Strangely I don't recall Hillary Clinton being anything other than diplomatic during her diplomatic visits to Moscow.

I still wouldn't vote for her, but jus' sayin'

 

[McLaren]

Because his rhetoric and limited understanding of foreign policy comes across as extremely aggressive? Because his diplomatic skills have demonstrably been limited to flinging insults back?

Of which have been nothing but based on his attitude. Hillary's diplomatic skills however, are on FBI documents as insulting, & no regard for protocols.

"From her own experience, and information obtained through [Redacted] and other agents, [Redacted] described a "stark difference" between RICE and CLINTON with regard to obedience to security and diplomatic protocols. RICE observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols while CLINTON frequently and "blatantly" disregarded them.

For example, it is standard security and diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to ride in the armored limousine with the local U.S. ambassador when traveling in countries abroad. It is seen as diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to arrive at foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador; however, CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [Redacted] explained that CLINTON's protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were "abundant."

By DS security policy, no cell phones are allowed inside the SCIF and DS agents, officers, and staff are required to leave their cell phones outside the door in secure lockers. CLINTON refused to abide to this security requirement and brought her cell phone, believed to be a Blackberry, inside the SCIF where a DS agent assigned to Post 1 was required to guard it. DS agents were indignant that they were required to follow security policy but CLINTON made herself exempt from the same regulations.

On a trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, in early 2009, CLINTON requested to visit an area of Jakarta that presented security and safety challenges. This visit was reportedly for a photo opportunity regarding CLINTON's "clean cooking stoves" initiative. The DS advance team recommended against traveling to this area because the route could not be secured and was lined with dangerous circumstances and individuals. As such, the DS advance team recommended in writing that this excursion be stricken from the schedule but were told by DS management that it was going to happen because "she wanted it." DS agents felt this excursion into potentially hostile areas placed CLINTON, her staff, the media, and her security detail in unnecessary danger in order to conduct a photo opportunity for "her election campaign." DS agents had the perception that CLINTON was using her position as Secretary of State to campaign for President of the United States. DS agents felt CLINTON traveled with hand-picked media who would present her in favorable light in order to garner political support. It was also believed that CLINTON disregarded security and diplomatic protocols, occasionally without regard for the safety of her staff and protection detail, in order to gain favorable press.

She was apparently so awful, that agents would ask for reassignment or employment elsewhere.

Despite having her own DS security detail, CLINTON continued to utilize a Secret Service security detail while at her residence in Chappaqua, New York. DS security would meet Secret Service security at the airport in New York and turn over protection to them. This practice was unknown to DS prior to CLINTON's tenure and often presented logistical problems to both services. [Redacted] explained that CLINTON's treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere. Prior to CLINTON's tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State's protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON's tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her. [Redacted] claimed to have had at least one conversation with Secret Service agents who experienced the same poor treatment.

I find it hard to believe Trump is somehow going to be a worse candidate at handling foreign situations than what Hillary is on record of doing. The woman plays by her own rules, even if it means putting lives in danger.

Strangely I don't recall Hillary Clinton being anything other than diplomatic during her diplomatic visits to Moscow.

Ah yes, so Putin is just making things up and has absolutely no ill-will towards Hillary.

 

[Conza]

Wow very close result if GTPlanet were the only votes for the US election.

I'm a big fan of Bill Clinton, imho, the best president of a generation, possibly/arguable the 20th century

Hillary Clinton... she's actually the most qualified candidate that's ever ran for president, like her or not, think she's squeeky clean or deceptive and corrupt, or any where in between. I think, with much thanks to Donald Trump re-igniting the Republican party (and killing it in the short term), if the house and senate go Blue for the first time in... about 6 years? Clinton has the chance to do many things Obama hasn't been able to do for that long.

I'm also a fan of Barrak Obama, I think history will look favourably on him, and will be quite harsh on the Republican party of that time.

Clinton will win, I think similar margins to 2012 Obama vs. Romney, maybe even slightly better, Donald Trump, bad for the GOP right now for sure, I think once the rubble has settled, we'll have a chance for a more reasonable/moderate party, allowing the Democractic party to be slightly more left leaning, and overall a better democractic system for everyone there.

So as "disasterous" as many have said this election is, with both candidates being lack luster, one a bit boring, possibly has some questionable history, and the other a complete joke of a character, who really effectively illustrates the sadness of the GOP in 2016, and should not have gotten this far, the ultimate results long term will be quite good.

Any hey, if Clinton isn't very good, 2020 isn't a complete lock for her, if the GOP can get itself into shape quick smart, it might mount a challenge.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Of which have been nothing but based on his attitude. Hillary's diplomatic skills however, are on FBI documents as insulting, & no regard for protocols.

So cite them. What you've actually included are that US ambassadors are upset at not going to parties with her and that her Secret Service arrangements were different. That's nuts-and-bolts stuff for sure but it isn't anything to do with diplomacy

The problem with the quote you have cited is that finding an un-named source from a naturally secret organisation is difficult.

Time wrote in 1993 that "A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts. The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham). Many of the stories are attributed to the Secret Service in an attempt to give the tales credibility."

Melanson, in his history of the Secret Service, notes that "The Service's unwritten code of silence dictates that agents keep their observations to themselves. Today, many agents still do not want to accept that anyone among the Clintons' protective details broke the long-understood rule: "There's no way we would have talked about it. There's an agency culture, an unwritten code. That was a pretty tough time for us [because people accused us of breaking the code]."

 

[McLaren]

So cite them.

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view

It's directly from the FBI.

What you've actually included are that US ambassadors are upset at not going to parties with her and that her Secret Service arrangements were different. That's nuts-and-bolts stuff for sure but it isn't anything to do with diplomacy

No wonder I've had you on ignore. You just make up bull**** in some desperate attempt to sound like you've still got anything left of an argument.

For example, it is standard security and diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to ride in the armored limousine with the local U.S. ambassador when traveling in countries abroad. It is seen as diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to arrive at foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador; however, CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [Redacted] explained that CLINTON's protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were "abundant."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You just make up bull**** in some desperate attempt to sound like you've still got anything left of an argument.

At least he answers the question. He specifically asked you about Trump's foreign policy and diplomatic skills. All you did was point out that Clinton hasn't observed protocol, so not only have you not talked about Trump, and it's a hell of a leap from "Clinton hasn't observed protocol" to "Clinton's ability to handle diplomatic issues is worse than Trump's".

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view

It's directly from the FBI.

I've just read a hundred pages of submission in regard of her email woes, nothing new there but nothing that shows how her foreign policy or diplomacy works?

No wonder I've had you on ignore. You just make up bull**** in some desperate attempt to sound like you've still got anything left of an argument.

Your original statement was:

I find it hard to believe Trump is somehow going to be a worse candidate at handling foreign situations than what Hillary is on record of doing.

You requoted the part where local ambassadors were upset (they're US ambassadors, as you know) that they didn't arrive at parties with her, other than that you've failed to source the record that you implied you could source.

 

[Dotini]

Trump isn't a "realist"

I'm going to be as brief as possible because you're a foreigner with limited knowledge of US politics, limited interest in what's best for the US as opposed to Canada or other foreign countries, and because of my preference for a simple literary style due to the nature of this forum and the arthritis in my hands. But as I do have some respect for your intelligence I'll give it one brief whirl.

There are four easily identifiable blocs on the US foreign policy right.
- libertarians - not numerous, but among the intelligentsia
- old-right isolationists, a.k.a. paleocons - often join with libertarians in non-interventionism
- traditional hawks - numerous, not limited to military, veterans, law-enforcement
- neocons - take hawkishness to the extreme, but are not numerous outside the Beltway. Powerful and preeminent in foreign policy for the last quarter century. These folks are most threatened by and hostile to the Trump phenomenon.

Scattered among the the first three of these groups are the realists. Realists see the world as it is - the Bismarckian "art of the possible". Cynical and world-weary, they don't have permanent attachments, but do have permanent interests.

The bulk of Trump supporters have grown weary of endless foreign war. As isolationists and traditional hawks, their votes have prevailed in the Republican primaries. This is Trump's constituency coming together and becoming organized and now speaking with a bellowing megaphone, the nationalist-populist prairie fire.

"Personnel is policy". Should Trump be elected,he will likely try to stock his administration with foreign policy realists.

Trump knows Bush drove us into a ditch in Iraq. Beyond a few advisors, he will not send troops to the middle east.

Obama has continued Bush's policies, dropping the messianism but keeping the alliances and commitments, reducing defense spending and added climate change. We have a policy of containment of Russia, China, ISIS/al Qaeda and the CO2 molecule, together with a slew of commitments to defense treaties with other countries, the rights of various groups and endangered species. Together, not sustainable.

The US has ~4% of the world population and ~20% of the GDP. We cannot continue to police the world. Trump will rethink US commitments to feckless, faithless allies. He will not risk nuclear war over the Spratleys or eastern Ukraine. Trump realizes the big powers must be dealt with as authoritarians with their own interests. He will deal with Russia and China as legitimate powers, not rogue states to be subdued by us. He will likely end the war in Afghanistan by making a deal with the Taliban in Pakistan, and the war in Syria by partition.

Trump is an instinctive dealmaker. He will build rapport with world leaders and not be a hot blooded unilateralist interventionist like Bush or a dithering multilateralist like Obama. Trump's leadership will be the strengthening of the economy. He will join realism with economic nationalism. He may seek to reprise the multipolar system of Nixon and Kissinger.

To his critics who see him as buffoonish and impetuous, Trump supporters may ask, "When has the conventional wisdom proved correct?"

If he does succeed to the presidency, Trump will have proved himself a strategic thinker and not a dummy.

 

[BobK]

And now for something completely different...