[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?

  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
mustafur
and let's ignore the Establishment media, who will bend political coverage to who ever gives them favours.
Click to expand...
The question was which American media was reporting the US was interfering in Israeli elections. I answered the question. Whether or not YOU believe the source is another matter entirely.
 
As others have said in regards to those supporting any bit of Trump or just the outcome in general. If it were Hillary they'd not care, but since it is the person who beat her, now it's a matter that should be looked into. Give me a break, if the sincerity were there I'd actually give some of the voice of dissent the time they would deserve if they actually came from a objective view point.
 
Sanji Himura
The question was which American media was reporting the US was interfering in Israeli elections. I answered the question. Whether or not YOU believe the source is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
The post wasn't aimed at you.
 
prisonermonkeys
Obama had a point that it would be incredibly difficult to directly rig the election because the system is so decentralised. Rather than rigging one election, you would effectively have to rig half a dozen separate elections.

But it would be considerably easier to indirectly rig the election by manipulating public opinion. How many fake news stories emerged during the election? Who created them? Where did they come from?

I fail to see how it's hypocricy to say one thing and do another when there is no contradiction between word and action.
Click to expand...
Is there a law against trying to sway public opinion via the internet? Fake news has abounded for years and it's been a favourite weapon of the left as well. Rolling Stone's phony "Rape on Campus" story, Lena Dunham's fake story about being raped by a, "Republican named Barry", opponents of Obama don't have political and philisophical disagreements they are mostly racists according to many lefties including Jimmy Carter and on and on and on. Fake news is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. Who's to say which story influenced voters one way or the other. IMO there was more than enough real news for voters to make up their minds. If Hillary had won, I'd bet dollars to donuts the whole fake news thing wouldn't get more than an editorial or two in a couple of left wing rags.
 
Johnnypenso
Is there a law against trying to sway public opinion via the internet? Fake news has abounded for years and it's been a favourite weapon of the left as well. Rolling Stone's phony "Rape on Campus" story, Lena Dunham's fake story about being raped by a, "Republican named Barry", opponents of Obama don't have political and philisophical disagreements they are mostly racists according to many lefties including Jimmy Carter and on and on and on. Fake news is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm being overly pedantic here but as far as I'm aware terms like "fake news" usually refer specifically to the phenomenon that is websites created for the purpose of intentionally spreading hoax stories or conspiracy theory - they do not refer to instances of misleading/inaccurate/biased journalism that you describe. I fully agree with you that itself is an issue and one that's on both sides of the political spectrum, but it's also very distinctive from what I understand to be fake news, and I don't think the two issues should be lumped together.
 
TRGTspecialist
Sorry if I'm being overly pedantic here but as far as I'm aware terms like "fake news" usually refer specifically to the phenomenon that is websites created for the purpose of intentionally spreading hoax stories or conspiracy theory - they do not refer to instances of misleading/inaccurate/biased journalism that you describe. I fully agree with you that itself is an issue and one that's on both sides of the political spectrum, but it's also very distinctive from what I understand to be fake news, and I don't think the two issues should be lumped together.
Click to expand...
You've got a point but to me it's all fruit from the same poisoned tree. Once people see that you can fake something like Dunham did, without consequence beyond a few tweets or facebook posts, or people flinging about the "racist" label when opposing Obama, it emboldens the trolls to the point where you have the situation you have now. Anyone on either corner of the political spectrum, can simply make up a story and if they get caught, just ignore it, make a smart remark on twitter, or say, "oops, sorry, but you know what I meant, they made me do it", and on to the next fake story.

Now, having said that, I'm going let the story of Rocky being considered for the Chair of the National Endowment of the Arts sit for a few days before posting up a link...just in case. When asked about the issue, Rocky responded, "Yo Adrian, see what happens if you eat lightnin' and crap thunder!"

Note: That last quote is fictitous (for the pedants)
 
The Washington Post has launched a Trump fact-check service, particularly for his Tweets:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...nsion-fact-checks-donald-trump-tweets/8129294

We had something similar a few years ago which was designed to track the government's election promises (especially since they promised to deliver on their promises) and to critically examine the claims of politicians, and it's worked pretty well.
 
prisonermonkeys
The Washington Post has launched a Trump fact-check service, particularly for his Tweets:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...nsion-fact-checks-donald-trump-tweets/8129294

We had something similar a few years ago which was designed to track the government's election promises (especially since they promised to deliver on their promises) and to critically examine the claims of politicians, and it's worked pretty well.
Click to expand...
Who's going to fact-check the fact-checkers? Folks on the right and the anti-establishment left delight in pointing to the fake news spewed out by the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN for decades now. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.We are literally floating on a vast ocean of encrusted lies enshrined as myth.
 
prisonermonkeys
The Washington Post has launched a Trump fact-check service, particularly for his Tweets:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...nsion-fact-checks-donald-trump-tweets/8129294

We had something similar a few years ago which was designed to track the government's election promises (especially since they promised to deliver on their promises) and to critically examine the claims of politicians, and it's worked pretty well.
Click to expand...
The Washington Post aka Pravda on the Potomec, launching a fact check service on a political enemy. That's about as credible as Breitbart launching a fact check service on Hillary Clinton:lol: Fox News is probably closer to the centre in terms of viewers/readers than WaPo is.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks Washington Post is a good source for information clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.f0781ce9d358

Ironically, had Hillary would have won, Liberals would be saying "accept the victory, or be deemed traitors and a threat to the republic democracy of America!"

But since Hillary won, they're saying "Let's try anything to get the Queen onto her rightful throne. It's not a threat to Democracy, but a simple check in power that was originally intended by Hamilton/enter founding father here. Don't you want what the Founding Fathers would have wanted?".

At this point, they're urging electors to use their Constitutional right, yet its unable to be used in 48 states.



I wonder if this will ever lead to a Supreme Court case that rules the state laws that bent the Electoral College as Unconstitutional, leading to electors being able to vote freely, essentially making the popular vote pointless (which on second thought wouldn't happen because America needs to keep its "We are America; We're great because we can vote for our leader", as if 90% of the Western World doesn't choose its leader).

Even if it did happen, I don't think it would be beneficial; Americans are already feeling disconnected from their elected officials, and putting trust into electors, who in a sense are elected officials, would not sit well with many Americans.
 
Sanji Himura
No, the true alternative is for everyone to actually read conflicting sources and learn how to form their own opinions on any given subject, but we can't have critical thinking in this day and age.
Click to expand...

It's not even that simple though. Most people aren't in a position to have first-hand data, so it about finding sources that are trustworthy. Which is more difficult than it sounds.

It's not merely about forming opinions, it's about having real facts on which to form opinions. An opinion is worth nothing if it's based on fairy tales.
 
Imari
It's not even that simple though. Most people aren't in a position to have first-hand data, so it about finding sources that are trustworthy. Which is more difficult than it sounds.

It's not merely about forming opinions, it's about having real facts on which to form opinions. An opinion is worth nothing if it's based on fairy tales.
Click to expand...
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."
 
S_Bridge
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."
Click to expand...

More so you're not really entitled to your opinion if is basis is crap. No one can dispute you liking blue because you fancy it more than green or yellow. But your reasoning for Trump or not Trump is a different story, because to do so you'd have to basis on something he'd said or someone else said, something tangible to actually form an opinion. That's how I read Imari's statement.

To me personally, I don't think anyone is entitled to their opinions because in most cases opinions aren't as simple as blue or red, or this music or that. And thus the old cop out of "well it's my opinion" allows ignorance more than anything. Even in media selection, it's very hard to find a trustworthy source cause each source has an angle and even then you have filter out said angle to see where everyone meets up and go from there. So it's hard to form an adequate opinion unless you're willing to find oodles of info to support said opinion.

I agree somewhat with your summation just not the entitled to the opinion portion mostly.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
More so you're not really entitled to your opinion if is basis is crap. No one can dispute you liking blue because you fancy it more than green or yellow. But your reasoning for Trump or not Trump is a different story, because to do so you'd have to basis on something he'd said or someone else said, something tangible to actually form an opinion. That's how I read Imari's statement.

To me personally, I don't think anyone is entitled to their opinions because in most cases opinions aren't as simple as blue or red, or this music or that. And thus the old cop out of "well it's my opinion" allows ignorance more than anything. Even in media selection, it's very hard to find a trustworthy source cause each source has an angle and even then you have filter out said angle to see where everyone meets up and go from there. So it's hard to form an adequate opinion unless you're willing to find oodles of info to support said opinion.

I agree somewhat with your summation just not the entitled to the opinion portion mostly.
Click to expand...

Bit of both. It's the fact that it can be so hard to actually find and identify which facts are really FACTS (and therefore correct) that it can be a nightmare trying to actually build a rational opinion. Because any opinion that isn't based on facts is just waffle.

I think opinions have their place, but only when everyone is working from the same information. They can be useful, because it's all about how you put the information together and the links that you draw. I may think that I've got it all figured out, until someone comes along and says "yes, but did you consider the way that the phlangerons in the month of May affect the tweezles in the whizwozzer?", and I say "No, I didn't!" and it tips my whole view upside down.

That's the beauty of sharing opinions, of gaining new insights that you might not have thought of. Unfortunately, in recent times the term "opinion" seems to mean "belief that I wouldn't change if you paid me a million dollars despite the fact that I've hardly thought about it at all and have no meaningful evidence to support it".
 
Imari
Bit of both. It's the fact that it can be so hard to actually find and identify which facts are really FACTS (and therefore correct) that it can be a nightmare trying to actually build a rational opinion. Because any opinion that isn't based on facts is just waffle.

I think opinions have their place, but only when everyone is working from the same information. They can be useful, because it's all about how you put the information together and the links that you draw. I may think that I've got it all figured out, until someone comes along and says "yes, but did you consider the way that the phlangerons in the month of May affect the tweezles in the whizwozzer?", and I say "No, I didn't!" and it tips my whole view upside down.

That's the beauty of sharing opinions, of gaining new insights that you might not have thought of. Unfortunately, in recent times the term "opinion" seems to mean "belief that I wouldn't change if you paid me a million dollars despite the fact that I've hardly thought about it at all and have no meaningful evidence to support it".
Click to expand...

I'm fine with opinions so long as you actually base them on something concrete. The moment people say "well I'm entitled to my opinion. Even if it's wrong it's just an opinion!" Is when I have to politely say that's not how it works and it does a disservice to anyone that has the off chance of running into that person spewing whatever they think is correct. It's when opinions are so wrong and or one sided that I take a massive issue. I agree with you especially in regards to this and how one should digest and regurgitate information in respect to politics.
S_Bridge
Ah, I wasn't giving a summation. It's an old quote. Hence the quote marks. 👍
Click to expand...

I know it is an old saying, I was just stating in the context of you using it to basically say in short what Imari was talking about. If that wasn't the case then sorry for misconstruing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wfooshee
Electoral College: Discuss!
3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
7K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
399K
TexRex
TexRex
Sanji Himura
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
12K
PocketZeven
PocketZeven
Sanji Himura
US Midterm Elections 2014
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
4K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
DK
US Congress Elections, 2016
Replies
1
Views
523
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back