|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2016 23:12 Plansix wrote:
This reminds me of the people who claim the moon landing is faked. Combing over her every action and slowing down single frame to see if it was a cough drop or some sort of weird tumor she is spitting out. This is right up there with the birther shit.
Not quite, a long lasting persistent cough can be a sign of many serious health conditions, combine that with her collapses and zoning out sometimes is it any wonder people are questioning her physical fitness?
It would probably be sensible to have some kind of independent, impartial panel of doctors that reviews the health of all candidates given the things that have happened in the past.
|
On September 08 2016 23:20 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 23:12 Plansix wrote:
This reminds me of the people who claim the moon landing is faked. Combing over her every action and slowing down single frame to see if it was a cough drop or some sort of weird tumor she is spitting out. This is right up there with the birther shit. Not quite, a long lasting persistent cough can be a sign of many serious health conditions, combine that with her collapses and zoning out sometimes is it any wonder people are questioning her physical fitness? It would probably be sensible to have some kind of independent, impartial panel of doctors that reviews the health of all candidates given the things that have happened in the past.
No, it isn't sensible at all. We don't it need to respond to every cracked pot theory the Internet comes up with as if it has merit. Find evidence her doctor lied in his medical report, not a series of gifs compiled by Reddit.
|
It can also be a sign of having allergies, or chronic sinusitis. Mostly it's people trying to tar her with suspicion, rather than any genuine issue.
That said, I'd be fine with having independent medical reviews of all major candidates.
|
If we want to talk about medical issues let's talk about Trump's bullshit doctor's note from his bullshit doctor. Pretty sure something written like that wouldn't get me out of class in elementary school.
|
I had wonderful phlegm that solidified in my sinuses and came out all horrible looking and smelling for a few months last year. I didn't see my doctor because I'm a terribly stubborn person. Never happened before, and I was going to see my doctor about it if it repeated itself this summer (because despite stubbornness, I was afraid the smell of it was actually translating into my breath...)
Didn't repeat, allergies this year are way less than last year, going to take that correlation for what it is and assume that Hilary has some shitty allergies also.
|
In reality we should just use those reports and the relative trust worthiness of the doctors providing them to make informed decisions. We shouldn’t need to have an independent panel to review every aspect of the candidate’s life every time someone is mildly worried about. I think candidates should release their taxes. I don’t want them to be forced to do so. If they refuse to, that is enough information for me. The same goes with medical issues.
Edit: My allergies this year have been far worse than the last 5 years. Not that any of this is relevant since this is all while speculation. Seriously, this shit is a distraction to more substantive discussions.
|
Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said he was “incredibly frustrated” with himself after failing to recognize the name of the Syrian city of Aleppo in a TV interview Thursday.
“And what is Aleppo?” Johnson asked on MSNBC when he was questioned on what he would do about the besieged Syrian city.
“You’re kidding,” commentator Mike Barnicle said. “No,” Johnson replied. “Aleppo is in Syria, it’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis,” Barnicle said.
“OK, got it,” Johnson said, going on to provide a general answer about the Syrian conflict, where he said the only viable option “is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically” resolve the conflict.
The exchange, which sent the phrase “What is Aleppo” to Twitter’s worldwide trends list, is a blow to a third-party candidate trying to capitalize on the unpopularity of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, has been campaigning for a spot on the stage at the first presidential debate on Sept. 26. To qualify, he would have to reach a 15 percent average in five national polls recognized by the presidential debate commission.
The Libertarian -- who advocates for legalizing marijuana, simplifying the tax code, imposing term limits on elected officials, and protecting civil liberties and privacy from government -- doesn’t appear on track to qualify for the first debate yet.
In the RealClearPolitics national poll average, Johnson has 9 percent support. Clinton leads with 41.2 percent, Trump follows with 39.1 percent, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein has 3.3 percent. The average includes the polls the debate commission will consider as well as some it won’t.
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, said Wednesday on Twitter that he hoped voters would get to see Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, on the debate stages this fall. Romney, a leading Republican critic of Trump, stopped short of endorsing the Libertarian ticket.
“I’m incredibly frustrated with myself,” Johnson said in an interview off-set after the gaffe. He said he was “guilty” of not remembering Aleppo was a central city in the Syrian conflict.
“Sure it should,” he said when asked if the incident should be treated as significant. “Believe me, no one is taking this more seriously than me. I feel horrible.”
"I have to get smarter and that’s just part of the process,” he said.
The subject came up at a news conference Clinton held at an airport in White Plains, New York. Without mentioning Johnson, Clinton told reporters, “You can look on the map and find Aleppo.”
www.bloomberg.com
What an idiot.
|
A chronic dry cough can also be a sign that you're actually taking your blood pressure medication so you don't die.
|
United States42971 Posts
It doesn't look good for Gary Johnson but his platform is one of disengagement so it's not as bad as if Trump had done it. Although I'd like it if people knew about Aleppo generally, even if they're not interested in the Syrian civil war. It's one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, one of the birthplaces of civilization.
|
I honestly think that Johnson's poll numbers might go up because of the attention he'll get from that ridiculous gaffe.
At least, it's been that kind of election year...
|
On September 09 2016 00:17 Nevuk wrote:
I honestly think that Johnson's poll numbers might go up because of the attention he'll get from that ridiculous gaffe.
At least, it's been that kind of election year...
Interesting thought. If the main thing working against Gary is the fact that no one has even heard of him, you'd expect some increase in support from him suddenly being in headlines. However, with this being his introduction to people, I can't help but wonder if people will just write him off completely.
|
On September 08 2016 22:55 Plansix wrote:I feel it’s a good time to post this again: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-conspiracy-theories-spread-on-fbThere are a bunch of other studies out there, but the current shape of the internet really allows the proliferation of theories based on little to no creditable evidence. Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 22:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 22:37 farvacola wrote:NEW YORK — Donald Trump defended his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin at a forum here Wednesday focused on national security issues, even suggesting that Putin is more worthy of his praise than President Obama.
“Certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader,” Trump said. “We have a divided country.”
The Republican presidential nominee said that an alliance with Russia would help defeat the Islamic State, and when asked to defend some of Putin’s aggressions on the world stage, he asked, “Do you want me to start naming some of the things Obama does at the same time?”
Trump also said he appreciated some of the kind words Putin has had for him. “Well, I think when he calls me brilliant, I think I’ll take the compliment, okay?”
Trump and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton made back-to-back appearances at an event that sounded the starting gun for the final stretch of the presidential race and offered a potential preview of what are expected to be rollicking debates in the weeks to come.
Clinton offered herself as a model of “absolute rock steadiness” on foreign policy, and Trump promised to be a disruptive force for improvement, saying that under Obama even the military’s generals have been “reduced to rubble.” Trump suggested he could replace some of the military brass.
Clinton appeared guarded, even stilted, as she navigated tough questions about her use of a private email server as secretary of state and her vote for the Iraq war in the Senate, but Trump showed no such restraint with a series of controversial statements.
He reaffirmed his view that having men and women serve alongside one another is the root of the military’s sexual-assault problem. He said recent intelligence briefings have convinced him that Clinton and other Obama administration officials did not heed the advice of experts. And he praised Putin, noting among other things the Russian president’s “82 percent approval rating.”
Ahead of Wednesday’s forum, Trump delivered a speech in Philadelphia in which he called for a robust expansion of U.S. military capabilities and an end to budget sequestration on defense spending. Trump praises Putin at national security forum Trump thinks Russia is a united country? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Unless he means united as in "the opposition party has been systematically forced into subterranian existence with a token party in its stead." I like how he cites the Putin's approval rating like that is something that could be accurately measured in Russia and not a product of propaganda.
I just want to interject here and suggest that the constant attack ads being put out by PACs and whatnot are also propaganda intended to shape people's beliefs. I mean, we've seen polls where it becomes obvious that Democrats have very negative views of Republican and vice versa. Why is that, really? Has it always been that way or is it the result of extensive negative attack ads (aka propaganda) by both parties? Furthermore, I think that Russia & Putin are constantly being portrayed as the enemy in a similar way by what is essentially also propaganda. I could try to look up some interviews and talks that were posted on YouTube where Stephen Cohen (a known expert on Russia & its history) talks about Russia which were rather enlightening for me on the matter. Trump wanting to deal with Putin on a state/business level is not an evil thing in and of itself, at all. Putin has repeatedly shown he will hold up his agreements with the US, while the US constantly seems to break their agreements (although these last two sentences have little to do with what you said).
Also, while I think neither of us are in a position to accurately judge the Russian political system, I'd like to put forth the following: you could argue that both the Democrats and Republicans have an interest in maintaining the current two-party system and are using their power (influence through politics and wealth) to do so. If you were to put them together (which can be justified in this common goal that they share), the two parties together have a similar amount of power compared to the Russian parties that are in charge of their country. To put it another way, it is very difficult for any "outsider" party to gain power in both Russia and America. So, how different are the two countries in terms of politics, really?
|
On September 09 2016 00:11 KwarK wrote:
It doesn't look good for Gary Johnson but his platform is one of disengagement so it's not as bad as if Drumpf had done it. Although I'd like it if people knew about Aleppo generally, even if they're not interested in the Syrian civil war. It's one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, one of the birthplaces of civilization.
Most people in the west wouldnt know it, wouldnt know it unless they had an interest in middle eastern history, religious history or the middle east in general.
|
So Clinton did a press conference today
zeo can die happy
|
It's interesting to see the media in a huge frenzy over Matt Lauer. I wonder if that means good things for the upcoming debates. There is now a need to not repeat a recent mistake by someone else.
|
Propaganda is an overused term and really should be relegated to state funded attempts to sway the public clearly showing that the effort is state funded.
In regards to the issues with an outsider gaining influence, I don’t believe that is as true in the US. Obama was an outsider when he first ran and the establishment was deeply suspicious of his ability to win the election. The party system isn’t perfect, but they have open membership and many people have worked their way up through the ranks of both parties.
We bemoan the party system due to it being entrenched and having legitimate issues. But the desire for a 3rd party to somehow come in and “fix the system” is no guarantee of success. If we look at the third party options, they are even less palatable than most centrist from either party. I feel that the push for a 3rd party, regardless of the merits of that party, is based on a false hope that it would provide for better options. And it seems like the path of least resistance when compared than making efforts to change the current parties. It is the quick fix solution to a much more complex problem, which is why it is so palatable.
|
On September 09 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:
It's interesting to see the media in a huge frenzy over Matt Lauer. I wonder if that means good things for the upcoming debates. There is now a need to not repeat a recent mistake by someone else.
He was not good at all. In both interviews. He is the host of the Today show, which is basically a talk show with a news segment. He isn’t even a reporter and does not even claim to be one. I question why he was put on those interviews given the nature of this election. He isn’t used to pushing back at all during interviews, which is what was needed in both interviews.
|
On September 09 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Propaganda is an overused term and really should be relegated to state funded attempts to sway the public clearly showing that the effort is state funded.
So you would agree that "In God We Trust" on money is propaganda? (not that it has much to do with the previous statements, I'm just curious and annoyed by religion)
|
On September 08 2016 22:17 biology]major wrote:
So there is a conspiracy theory which seems pretty legit that Clinton was using a ear piece during the forum last night. There was a pic with a piece in her ear and email from huma about ear piece in wiki leaks.
Wow man
|
On September 09 2016 00:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Propaganda is an overused term and really should be relegated to state funded attempts to sway the public clearly showing that the effort is state funded. So you would agree that "In God We Trust" on money is propaganda? (not that it has much to do with the previous statements, I'm just curious and annoyed by religion)
Yes and no. It is a form of propaganda since it is saying that the nation collectively trusts in god. But a critical aspect of propaganda is that it is designed by the state with the clear intent to mislead. The promotes the opposite of critical thinking on the subject in addresses and seeks to tell the population how to think on a specific issue using false information. I don’t believe that line on our currency was designed to mislead.
I am secular and would have no problem with that line being removed, but I am also not bothered by it existing as we can explain the context and why it is on our currency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
