|
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 the weekend leading up to 2016's first presidential debate, four news organizations came to a similar and sweeping conclusion: Donald Trump lies more often than Hillary Clinton.
In a normal election year this would be extraordinary. On Sunday editors and reporters at the newsrooms used another word: necessary.
The New York Times story — "A Week of Whoppers" — came out first on Saturday. Politico, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times all followed within hours.
Several of the editors who were involved said the timing was a coincidence. But there was clearly a desire to publish stories before Monday's debate, when Trump and Clinton's truthfulness will surely be at issue.
"Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has," the L.A. Times declared on page one of Sunday's paper.
Politico Magazine's team analyzed every statement made by both Trump and Clinton for five days and said "the conclusion is inescapable: Trump's mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration so greatly exceed Clinton's as to make the comparison almost ludicrous."
CNN
|
On September 27 2016 00:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 00:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 27 2016 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:It looks like 2015 might be more a reversion to the mean rather than an "increase" ![[image loading]](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/15violentcrimeoffensefigure.gif) First uptick in awhile, but I wouldn't freak out just yet. can you extend that line back to at least 2006? post recession crime might be high Graph is only for 5 years but stats here show a pretty straight decline with a slight bump before the recession oddly Here, I excel'd it for ya ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wjZS5IY.png) Do you want a trend line? I'm not sure a linear regression makes any sense for this data, though...
the rate isnt a percent. its per 100k inhabitants
also label your axes
linear regression is fine, though a bar chart is ok as well
|
The United States accused Russia of “barbarism” in Syria on Sunday as warplanes supporting Syrian government forces pounded Aleppo and Moscow said ending the civil war was almost “impossible”.
Yahoo
Sounds like a great time for a presidential candidate to send a businessman to Russia to discuss the lifting of sanctions should Trump become president. In a situation where both Trump and the businessman stand to benefit financially.
edit: wish the media would cover the Trump/Russia business more.
|
They should do the mature thing and give Russia the diplomatic silent treatment until they warm up to the wildly successful US handling of Syria.
|
On September 27 2016 00:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 00:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 27 2016 00:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 27 2016 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2016 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:It looks like 2015 might be more a reversion to the mean rather than an "increase" First uptick in awhile, but I wouldn't freak out just yet. can you extend that line back to at least 2006? post recession crime might be high Graph is only for 5 years but stats here show a pretty straight decline with a slight bump before the recession oddly Here, I excel'd it for ya Do you want a trend line? I'm not sure a linear regression makes any sense for this data, though... the rate isnt a percent. its per 100k inhabitants also label your axes linear regression is fine, though a bar chart is ok as well
You're right. I didn't read properly. Anyway, now I'm too lazy to redo it.
Anyway, still not sure linear regression makes sense. That would imply we can expect this to average out to a linear trend, and I'm not sure we can. Other than the data for this time scale looking roughly linear, is there any other reason you think this is linear, rather than... I dunno. Brownian?
|
On September 27 2016 00:56 oBlade wrote:
They should do the mature thing and give Russia the diplomatic silent treatment until they warm up to the wildly successful US handling of Syria.
So those peace talks with Kerry represent silent treatment, gotcha.
|
So when Trump fails to set his podium on fire and manages to act normal in the debates.... The media will be on the receiving end of the monster they helped create.
|
On September 27 2016 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 00:56 oBlade wrote:
They should do the mature thing and give Russia the diplomatic silent treatment until they warm up to the wildly successful US handling of Syria. So those peace talks with Kerry represent silent treatment, gotcha.
That's you talking, not me.
|
Exactly. He just has to avoid being a dumpster fire and he will look reasonable. Also Roger Ailes prepared Nixon for the debates and worked on reshaping the Nixon’s image so he could be elected. And that worked out great for the US. Nixon’s war on drugs has been a war we will never win.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/roger-ailes-fox-donald-trump-2016-conservatism-214076
Half the problem with Trump right now is people are expecting him to lose this himself, but there are to many people backing him now that are competent enough to avoid that. Clinton has to cut through the noise and I don't know how she gets there.
|
The only thing I'm willing to bet on is Trump complaining about the moderators within a day.
But yes the expectations and what they need to do to be 'successful' tonight is vastly different between Trump and Hillary.
|
On September 27 2016 01:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:On September 27 2016 00:56 oBlade wrote:
They should do the mature thing and give Russia the diplomatic silent treatment until they warm up to the wildly successful US handling of Syria. So those peace talks with Kerry represent silent treatment, gotcha. That's you talking, not me.
Okay so your first post was just false dichotomy that did nothing to justify Trump and Carter Page's actions.
|
On September 27 2016 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:
The only thing I'm willing to bet on is Trump complaining about the moderators within a day.
But yes the expectations and what they need to do to be 'successful' tonight is vastly different between Trump and Hillary.
I don't really like this talk of different expectations, I don't want it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy lol. I would like to think they'll just be judged on the merits of their debating on the issues.
|
On September 27 2016 01:10 Plansix wrote:Exactly. He just has to avoid being a dumpster fire and he will look reasonable. Also Roger Ailes prepared Nixon for the debates and worked on reshaping the Nixon’s image so he could be elected. And that worked out great for the US. Nixon’s war on drugs has been a war we will never win. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/roger-ailes-fox-donald-trump-2016-conservatism-214076Half the problem with Trump right now is people are expecting him to lose this himself, but there are to many people backing him now that are competent enough to avoid that. Clinton has to cut through the noise and I don't know how she gets there.
Which she cannot do as her entire campaign has been just that, noise.
|
On September 27 2016 01:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 01:10 Plansix wrote:Exactly. He just has to avoid being a dumpster fire and he will look reasonable. Also Roger Ailes prepared Nixon for the debates and worked on reshaping the Nixon’s image so he could be elected. And that worked out great for the US. Nixon’s war on drugs has been a war we will never win. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/roger-ailes-fox-donald-trump-2016-conservatism-214076Half the problem with Trump right now is people are expecting him to lose this himself, but there are to many people backing him now that are competent enough to avoid that. Clinton has to cut through the noise and I don't know how she gets there. Which she cannot do as her entire campaign has been just that, noise.
This is the same party that lost to George Bush twice and can't figure out how to get people to vote in a midterm election. If Obama had not won in the primary back in 2008, I bet they could have lost the White House to McCain. It is a bummer staring down the double barrel of Nixon/McCarthy 2.0 and no one can figure out how to deal with it. But the entire world is having this problem, so I guess its not just an US issue.
Maybe they will pull out a hail mary and capture some voters and minds. But right now I think its dead heat up until the election or Clinton just loses because everyone wants change, regardless of what form that comes in. Even if its terrible and will result in even more cooperate money flowing into goverment(the head of citizens united works for Trump).
|
Just visited hillaryclinton.com... I'm impressed by all the (subtle) tricks employed to influence visitors (not a knock on her in any way - it's just a stark contrast to how the Danish politicians homepages look).
I am however seriously questioning the decision to emphasize that none of the five living US presidents supports Donald Trump.
www.hillaryclinton.com
1) Isn't that kinda positive for a guy whose platform is to oppose the establishment?
2) Of said 5 living presidents I believe 3 of them are democrats and the 2 others are related to Jeb Bush (and have refrained from endorsing anyone - which admittedly speaks for itself pretty much).
I really dislike the way she continues to paint herself into a "not Trump" campaign rather than a "Hillary Clinton" campaign.
|
On September 27 2016 01:45 Ghostcom wrote:Just visited hillaryclinton.com... I'm impressed by all the (subtle) tricks employed to influence visitors (not a knock on her in any way - it's just a stark contrast to how the Danish politicians homepages look). I am however seriously questioning the decision to emphasize that none of the five living US presidents supports Donald Drumpf. www.hillaryclinton.com1) Isn't that kinda positive for a guy whose platform is to oppose the establishment? 2) Of said 5 living presidents I believe 3 of them are democrats and the 2 others are related to Jeb Bush (and have refrained from endorsing anyone - which admittedly speaks for itself pretty much). I really dislike the way she continues to paint herself into a "not Drumpf" campaign rather than a "Hillary Clinton" campaign.
Yeah I think its pretty well established that minus Obama and Bills Charisma to do the heavy lifitng, Dem campaigning is pretty ass. But thats also because campaigning for president is more about those things than substance.
I think that Vox guy Kline made a good point about how Hillary is literally the worst in terms of style..
Obligator ..
+ Show Spoiler +MURICCCAAAAA !!! FUCK YEAH !!!
|
On September 27 2016 02:12 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 01:45 Ghostcom wrote:Just visited hillaryclinton.com... I'm impressed by all the (subtle) tricks employed to influence visitors (not a knock on her in any way - it's just a stark contrast to how the Danish politicians homepages look). I am however seriously questioning the decision to emphasize that none of the five living US presidents supports Donald Drumpf. www.hillaryclinton.com1) Isn't that kinda positive for a guy whose platform is to oppose the establishment? 2) Of said 5 living presidents I believe 3 of them are democrats and the 2 others are related to Jeb Bush (and have refrained from endorsing anyone - which admittedly speaks for itself pretty much). I really dislike the way she continues to paint herself into a "not Drumpf" campaign rather than a "Hillary Clinton" campaign. Yeah I think its pretty well established that minus Obama and Bills Charisma to do the heavy lifitng, Dem campaigning is pretty ass. But thats also because campaigning for president is more about those things than substance. I think that Vox guy Kline made a good point about how Hillary is literally the worst in terms of style.. Obligator .. + Show Spoiler +MURICCCAAAAA !!! FUCK YEAH !!!
Hehe, yeah you are probably right  I'm just amazed at how many of these somewhat obvious(? - maybe I'm completely missing something) errors are committed (on both sides of the race really).
|
On September 27 2016 02:18 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 02:12 Rebs wrote:On September 27 2016 01:45 Ghostcom wrote:Just visited hillaryclinton.com... I'm impressed by all the (subtle) tricks employed to influence visitors (not a knock on her in any way - it's just a stark contrast to how the Danish politicians homepages look). I am however seriously questioning the decision to emphasize that none of the five living US presidents supports Donald Drumpf. www.hillaryclinton.com1) Isn't that kinda positive for a guy whose platform is to oppose the establishment? 2) Of said 5 living presidents I believe 3 of them are democrats and the 2 others are related to Jeb Bush (and have refrained from endorsing anyone - which admittedly speaks for itself pretty much). I really dislike the way she continues to paint herself into a "not Drumpf" campaign rather than a "Hillary Clinton" campaign. Yeah I think its pretty well established that minus Obama and Bills Charisma to do the heavy lifitng, Dem campaigning is pretty ass. But thats also because campaigning for president is more about those things than substance. I think that Vox guy Kline made a good point about how Hillary is literally the worst in terms of style.. Obligator .. + Show Spoiler +MURICCCAAAAA !!! FUCK YEAH !!! Hehe, yeah you are probably right I'm just amazed at how many of these somewhat obvious(? - maybe I'm completely missing something) errors are committed (on both sides of the race really).
I think Hilary has accepted that she can’t run as the non-establishment candidate, rightly or wrongly. She can’t chase after what Trump is selling, so she has to sell other things. The main problem is that what Trump is selling is easy answers to complex problems, which the press eats up. Clinton offers complex solutions to complex problems and everyone ignores it. She needs to tap into a little more of what Sanders and Trump are offering, even if it is complete bullshit.
We will see. After the debate a whole new set of voters will be paying attention and that might change things. Especially of Trump can’t answer questions tonight for 90 minutes. Though I am done waiting for the Trump implosion that will never happen.
|
If only y'all could see how Ohio Democrats campaign, shit's embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
