Prez Candidates

jefboyardee said:

Report: Votes Switched From Trump to Hillary in Texas

"She voted straight Republican and the vote had changed to Clinton!"

Residents of at least two cities in Texas are complaining that they voted for Donald Trump only to see the voting machine switch their ballot to Hillary Clinton.​

Click to expand...

Omg, it's (yet another) conspiracy

http://www.allsides.com/news-source/infowars

If that had been reported from another state, or by an actual news source, i might be concerned. As it is....#nope

Jeff, given the number of conspiracy theory publications you link (and therefore I assume you read), I'm amazed you manage to leave the house at all since there's so much scary out there!

^^^^ yeah!

Just confirmed from taking the quiz here:

http://www.allsides.com/bias/about-bias

I'm a liberal. Oh the shame...

jefboyardee said:

If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you get old, you have no brain.

Click to expand...

So my convictions and compassion for the less fortunate makes me stupid?

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

Let's just say that poor little quote has been translated to suit, taken out of context, and otherwise been somewhat mangled over the last 200 years!

Fun fact: did you know that in Australia the Liberals are actually their right-leaning, conservative party?

jefboyardee said:

If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you get old, you have no brain.

Click to expand...

closed minded ???

notacoach said:

If that had been reported from another state, or by an actual news source, i might be concerned. As it is....#nope

Jeff, given the number of conspiracy theory publications you link (and therefore I assume you read), I'm amazed you manage to leave the house at all since there's so much scary out there!

Click to expand...

http://www.snopes.com/texas-vote-switching/

WHAT'S TRUE: A woman in Tarrant County claimed that her vote switched from Republican to Democrat and she caught and corrected the error; a subsequent investigation determined the machine was working properly, and the woman admitted she may have erroneously selected the wrong candidate.

WHAT'S FALSE: Reports are not flooding in from across Texas about vote switching, and most anecdotes are identical with localities changed.

EDIT: And "I'm" stupid?

Father Guido said:

http://www.snopes.com/texas-vote-switching/

WHAT'S TRUE: A woman in Tarrant County claimed that her vote switched from Republican to Democrat and she caught and corrected the error; a subsequent investigation determined the machine was working properly, and the woman admitted she may have erroneously selected the wrong candidate.

WHAT'S FALSE: Reports are not flooding in from across Texas about vote switching, and most anecdotes are identical with localities changed.

EDIT: And "I'm" stupid?

Click to expand...

Surprise (not).

At least this a good source of information. Reuters is about as neutral as they come and believe it or not CNN is nearly so. I saw Trump being interviewed by a CNN reporter (don't recall her name) earlier today that was quite cordial. The discussion afterwards gave him quite a bit of praise compared to what I've seen elsewhere. Keep it up Donald if you want a fair shake from the press.

his new hotel near the white house..
"under budget and ahead of schedule"
he says... this is example of how he will run USA..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hotel-washington_us_5810ecdfe4b02b1d9e6441d4

just another lie..
his own past article says it should be done in 2015
http://www.trump.com/getmedia/7b3402f3-96ff-4a74-ab4a-300f006dad4c/OPODesign/

Not quite sure how dan330 could be seen as ridiculous idiot when he appears to be absolutely correct.

When the development was announced in 2014, the hotel was scheduled to open in March 2016.

The hotel actually opened in September 2016.

September 2016 is six months after March 2016. Regardless of how working in construction may affect your math.

Mr Trump however, claimed that the project was completed 2 years ahead of schedule.

It is possible that a revised schedule - created while the project was under way - had the project coming in 2.5 years late. Beating that revised schedule by 2 years does not mean that the project came in early, it means it didn't come in as late as once feared. It's still late and claiming it is 2 years ahead of schedule is therefore a lie.

What's really absurd here is that the truth - that a project of that size and complexity was completed within 6 months of the original estimate - is actually a very good story: there was absolutely no need to lie.

For more info see this story.

jefboyardee said:

Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to World War Three

On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.

On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.​

Click to expand...

The thing here is that this is Trump's OPINION. Reuters has (appropriately) reported what Trump himself has said about his opponent(s). I'm not sure how it proves anything other than that Trump said it?

bcrichster said:

With all greatest respects to you , sir:

Clinton News Network (CNN) would be more of a "good" source of news if it removed the Trump smearing, Pro Hillary bias & stayed objective. No more no less. It's very biased indeed.

Click to expand...

Respectfully back atcha: I believe otherwise. I used to flip between Fox News and MSNBC on TV (in REAL time) for "breaking political news," (among other tings) and more times than not, they are 180 degrees apart. I found it humorous (& oft times disgusting when listening to Bill-O). I refrain from doing so these days unless I have some free time and feel the need for a good laugh.

Why is it that you and jefboyardee cannot do likewise and cite from (and I quote): a "good" source of news?" Most of the quotes/links from both of you are from right biased FEEDS. I commended jefboyardee a few posts ago for citing a neutral (center) source. Because I did so draws ire because I also mentioned CNN?

None can be 100% unbiased, but if you want to see diverse perspectives in news and issues - Engage in critical thinking & civil dialog, then look no farther than here.

"Unlike regular news services, AllSides exposes bias and provides multiple angles on the same story so you can quickly get the full picture, not just one slant."

Here is but a brief sampling:

INFOWARS
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/infowars
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Right

Fox News
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/fox-news
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Right

Reuters
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Center

CNN
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Center

Wall Street Journal- News
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Center

POLITICO
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Center

MSNBC
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/msnbc
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Left

Huffington Post
http://www.allsides.com/news-source/huffington-post
The AllSides Media Bias Rating is:
Bias: Left

Citing the above ratings, coupled with my own viewing of the issues from multiple sources, I find it untrue that CNN is (as) biased as you state. I piped in (invaded?) this thread some time ago out of reading glaring misinformation. I was surprised to be welcomed, and thought I was. Instead, my (and others with opposing views) participation became objects of attack from (as we all know/knew) the far right. I/we are up to it, but by all means at least "try" to post factual non-biased information.

You should really focus on your candidate's lies that have actual significance & been proven (probably all of them) instead of hypothetical/imagined lies by others when you have probably no knowledge of construction techniques & processes as a base to compare your opinions. As someone who actually worked construction, I say "Stop talking unless you wish to continue painting yourself into an image of a ridiculous idiot. As in, shut your piehole unless you've actually worked in any capacity of construction for a living and actually know what you're talking about".
Instead you continue to explode from your anus with remarks that don't have any credulity, like " Trump said it so it must be a lie". When the reality is that you really know that is the attitude you should have about your candidate but you want it to not be true so badly that you project that feeling of falsehood onto the opponent. The sad part is that your own candidate has been bleeding you with a smile but you're too self righteous to see it.

Pity..

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for dan330, but I am of the opinion that you may well be crossing the line a bit (according to this warning) : "This thread is about the candidates and their positions. Any attacks on the supporters, and by extension the folks here posting in support of a candidate, are not welcome." Hell, I probably crossed that line myself. I was the first to chastise a 'basic 101 user' post for what I considered disregard of this statement. I was a bit harsh on him and have since privately apologized. I hope he returns in a better frame of mind and choice of words. He has some really good points, and is very passionate about his beliefs. I now digress and will standby for dan330 to speak for himself.

Regards, be well, & live in peace my friend.

How social media creates angry, poorly informed partisans:
http://www.allsides.com/news/2016-1...media-creates-angry-poorly-informed-partisans

"But the internet — and social media in particular — is destroying that trust by filling people's heads with prejudicial nonsense. If we don't find ways to help people find more reliable information, it's going to cause big problems in the long run."

bcrichster said:

With all greatest respects to you , sir: [emoji72]
Clinton News Network (CNN) would be more of a "good" source of news if it removed the Trump smearing, Pro Hillary bias & stayed objective. No more no less. It's very biased indeed.


You should really focus on your candidate's lies that have actual significance & been proven (probably all of them) instead of hypothetical/imagined lies by others when you have probably no knowledge of construction techniques & processes as a base to compare your opinions. As someone who actually worked construction, I say "Stop talking unless you wish to continue painting yourself into an image of a ridiculous idiot. As in, shut your piehole unless you've actually worked in any capacity of construction for a living and actually know what you're talking about".
Instead you continue to explode from your anus with remarks that don't have any credulity, like " Trump said it so it must be a lie". When the reality is that you really know that is the attitude you should have about your candidate but you want it to not be true so badly that you project that feeling of falsehood onto the opponent. The sad part is that your own candidate has been bleeding you with a smile but you're too self righteous to see it. [emoji90] Pity..

Click to expand...

LOL...
when I post my arguments.. I also give links to facts to back up my opinion.
you give ... crap and conspiracy and short quotes taken out of context.

your a construction genius = Trump business genius
I guess that is enough on that subject.

there is an old sayin... something about..
leading a horse to water... blah blah blah...

ok..

everyone knows I am against Drumpf..
and this post is not directed toward solid drumpf supporters.

to the group of undecided...
if you see drumpf as the next hitler.. and the end of our nation, maybe even our world as we know and love.
but you also don't like Hillary... and considering voting for something else....
you need to consider.. which is the worse of 2 evils.

because your vote .. or non-vote.. might actually help drumpf get his little hands on the nuclear button.!!!
if the votes come down to: (THIS IS IMAGINARY NUMBERS)
drumpf = 23% (personally I don't think it will be this high)
Hillary = 22%
non-voters = 25%
3rd option = 5%
4th option = 5%
write-ins = 20% (Mickey Mouse, Mom, Dad, Steve Jobs, whatever....)

then you might have thrown away your vote..to stop drumpf!!!!

Father Guido said:

How social media creates angry, poorly informed partisans:
http://www.allsides.com/news/2016-1...media-creates-angry-poorly-informed-partisans

"But the internet — and social media in particular — is destroying that trust by filling people's heads with prejudicial nonsense. If we don't find ways to help people find more reliable information, it's going to cause big problems in the long run."

Click to expand...

Finding unbiased, objective information is always going to be a problem isn't it? As we found in our Brexit referendum, everyone has a viewpoint, and convincing arguments were made from both sides