2016 Presidential election campaign 3
Excellent analysis - we need much more of this! http://www.salon.com/2016/09/08/how-white-racism-and-a-complicit-media-a...I agree generally although I would add that the fracturing of the public media lens, that we have seen over the last few decades, means that we have come to the point where practically speaking everyone is entitled to their own facts-- or at least a vision of them distant from others. This is what permits outright lying that would have been impossible to get away with on such a widespread scale only a decade ago.
Those who predicted that the information age could end with the Internet being able to obscure the truth with falsehoods so deep that for some people it may not be found. The inability of the masses to deploy the kind of critical thinking required to navigate Internet sources has become a threat to information so comprehensive that any somewhat democratic process is stymied.
Add this to all the critically important things this article raised and you can see the scale of the situation we are in and why I refuse to consider that the election is as predictable and past models instructive as some think.
I know people who support Trump -- dismissing so much said about him as lies and declaring so many things about Clinton to be true (without much consideration). These people are neither right wing nor stupid. They get angry when I point out how cult like their views are.
Remember that a characteristic of a cult is to cut the person off from the outside world. The responses of Trump seek to do exactly that. They work to destroy the credibility of any voices but their own. They myth this campaign is built on is you cannot trust anyone; the mainstream media is the enemy; everyone but Trump is lying; it is all a conspiracy. This is the most critical foundation of a cult -- to remove any alternate voices. With a self-selecting internet vision, you have digitally created isolation.
Add to all this the power of anger which is the foundation for Trump's views.
Those who are afraid are correct. Clinton may have the advantage but she is far from secure. History tells us nothing except that we are in something unprecedented.
Can it get any worse for the Clinton campaign?
After today's incident I am beginning to wonder if Clinton is committing campaign hari Kari
I don't think folks realize how serious today's incident is
I agree generally although I would add that the fracturing of the public media lens, that we have seen over the last few decades, means that we have come to the point where practically speaking everyone is entitled to their own facts-- or at least a vision of them distant from others.
The interesting part of this, to me, is that what fractured the public media lens was when news reportage was both opened up to everyone to do, and their results opened up to everyone to view.
Twenty years ago, news was reported by news agencies, who employed journalists, who covered stories (sometimes at great risk to themselves). Now "news" is reported by a blogger, by way of his opinion, and the once reputable news agencies are sneered at as "the MAINSTREAM MEDIA". If a babbler quotes a story from the Globe and Mail (aka the "Grope and Flail" or the "Mop and Pail") it's immediately suspect. And if they quote the blog and opinions of Paul Craig Roberts, it's immediately suspect. But at what point did these two news sources become equals?
It's like we've all just gone po-mo. Nobody can know anything, therefore everyone knows everything there is to know.
And FWIW, while we all like to chuckle at Fox (Faux?) News and those who tune in to it, I don't even think this is just a "right winger" thing. Seems to me that the left is just as excited to read some solid proof of the toxicity of vaccinations, the threat of "chemtrails", the "real" truth about 9/11, the hazards of wi-fi, the Bilderbergers collusion, the manufacture of the Sandy Hook "shootings", the CBC's fealty to the government of the day (whoever they may be) or Hillary Clinton's undisclosed terminal illness.
No one should be a candidate for the presidency who is over age 60 without being subject to a medical exam by independent medical examiners
Both candidates are too old for such a stressful job
Clinton tried to hid her illness which was the wrong thing to do although Trump hids everything
Clinton cancels trip to CA
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/index....
!!!
No one should be a candidate for the presidency who is over age 60 without being subject to a medical exam by independent medical examiners Both candidates are too old for such a stressful job Clinton tried to hid her illness which was the wrong thing to do although Trump hids everything
I don't like this at all.
Either you require everyone or nobody but to say a person is fine at 59 but not 60 is offensive. Age related illnesses do not come to everyone on the same schedule and to go with an arbitrary date does not make sense and is unjust.
If you want health fitness examinations for this office from all candidates that is a different argument.
Alternately perhaps countries should not focus and rely so much on a single individual. Maybe the solution is not to have a presidency with that much power in a single person.
And what kind of health examination do you mean? Do you include mental health? This is certainly arguable but due to stigma not very problematic. You would need to integrate mental health into the health continuum and remove social stigma (that's a job). and what type of privacy is allowed? What of conditions that would not affect the job -- does the public have a right to know? I don't think so. But who gets to decide what is relevent? Who gets to decide what conditions are okay for a president and does the public want to have a viewing for the rectal exam?
In any event I think your comment is agist and grossly simplistic.
!!!
I have seen this a few times. What does it signify?
This is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time. It is obviously not only agist but is an example of knowing no history.
Here is a list of US Presidents by age. Seems that there have been many who served well past their 60th birthday, about 40% of all Presidents. I would suggest maybe an intelligence test would be a better idea especially if it also came with a personality disorder screening test to keep sociopaths out of the office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by...
Both candidates are too old for such a stressful job Clinton tried to hid her illness which was the wrong thing to do although Trump hids everything
So, to recap:
1. They're both too old
2. Hillary "hid her illness"
3. Trump is probably also hiding one, since he hides everything
There are so many things wrong with Hillary's campaign which is just going from bad to worse
She is too old
Even if she does manage to win God forbid she even dreams about 2 terms
By the way so is Trump
And as much as I like him so is Saunders
!!!I have seen this a few times. What does it signify?
Oops
Duplicate post
Etc
The message is no longer theirs to control
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/making-hillary-clinton...
Obama's people such as Axelrod know the drill
The only reason they mentioned pneumonia is because of the video
Clinton needs to change her team now as she is presently in free fall
Clinton need to bring in Axelrod, maybe Gergen to take over the campaign
Time is running out
My gosh!
This is right up cody's alley and am surprised he hasn't already put if forward
https://www.google.ca/amp/theslot.jezebel.com/latest-clinton-health-cons...
!!!
The odds are dropping on Clinton's chances of winning with the bookies
There are so many things wrong with Hillary's campaign which is just going from bad to worse She is too old Even if she does manage to win God forbid she even dreams about 2 terms By the way so is Trump And as much as I like him so is Saunders
The alt-right is circulating footage of Sanders running to catch a train. There are so many layers there it's actually brilliant.
U.S. politics is a nasty business.
The universe is unfolding as it should I think
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/13/in-the-real-news-today/#more-17411
Excellent and right on alan
I'm no fan of Hillary but the tone of a Trump presidency would be ugly to say the least.
Privatizing public schools,'defeating ISIS in 30 days' , 'Why do we have nukes if we can't use them' , '50% of Americans are losers' ,Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes, 'eliminating crime' , etc.. And when asked how he'd achieve these things he babbles incoherently and repeats his message, 'Make America Great Again' He's a vapid,dull-minded sociopath.
Hillary? She's a 1980's Republican,a warhawk,referrerd black youth as super predators,supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act,etc..
What a hot mess.
At the end of the day,on November 9,Americans will be losers either way it goes.
I've always enjoyed Olbermann's take on things.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/hes-back-keith-olbermanns-premiere-episo...
Trump's appointment of a militarty advisor says that if he wins he will do much the same as if Hillary wins. In the real world neither of them actually are going to be deciding on what the US military industrial complex will do. Either will be the head waiter for the real powers that be.
Former CIA director James Woolsey, a vocal advocate of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harboured illegal weapons, will serve as a senior national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the campaign announced on Monday.
Woolsey’s hiring contrasted with Trump’s repeated assertions that he was a stalwart opponent of the invasion, although he initially supported it.
In the announcement, Woolsey said he supports Trump’s plan to expand the US military, which calls for ending Pentagon budget caps and spending billions of dollars for additional troops, ships and aircraft.
http://thewire.in/65597/trumps-newest-advisor-is-former-cia-chief-who-ur...
Trump: No Debate Moderator Because They'd Be 'Really Hard' On Me
Trump's appointment of a militarty advisor says that if he wins he will do much the same as if Hillary wins. In the real world neither of them actually are going to be deciding on what the US military industrial complex will do. Either will be the head waiter for the real powers that be.
Former CIA director James Woolsey, a vocal advocate of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harboured illegal weapons, will serve as a senior national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the campaign announced on Monday.
Woolsey’s hiring contrasted with Trump’s repeated assertions that he was a stalwart opponent of the invasion, although he initially supported it.
In the announcement, Woolsey said he supports Trump’s plan to expand the US military, which calls for ending Pentagon budget caps and spending billions of dollars for additional troops, ships and aircraft.
http://thewire.in/65597/trumps-newest-advisor-is-former-cia-chief-who-ur...
Thanks,krop. You beat me to it. And apparently,he wants John Bolton for Secretary of State.
Unfortunately Canadians and the other countries have a stake in this game as well
Would Canada really have elected Harper without Bush Jr?
Unfortunately Canadians and the other countries have a stake in this game as well Would Canada really have elected Harper without Bush Jr?
Good question. But I see the connection.
I'm no fan of Hillary but the tone of a Trump presidency would be ugly to say the least.
Privatizing public schools,'defeating ISIS in 30 days' , 'Why do we have nukes if we can't use them' , '50% of Americans are losers' ,Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes, 'eliminating crime' , etc.. And when asked how he'd achieve these things he babbles incoherently and repeats his message, 'Make America Great Again' He's a vapid,dull-minded sociopath.
Hillary? She's a 1980's Republican,a warhawk,referrerd black youth as super predators,supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act,etc..
What a hot mess.
At the end of the day,on November 9,Americans will be losers either way it goes.
Well said and I agree
This is absoutely true.
I had to delete the image as repeating it makes the thread too heavy for some internet connects I suspect.
Unfortunately Canadians and the other countries have a stake in this game as well Would Canada really have elected Harper without Bush Jr?
This is an important point. In some cases it is in the culture. In some cases we are told that with a right wing government in the US we have to compete with right wing policies.
When it comes to hate it seems as if the border is not that thick.
It also reduces our shock factor to what happens here. Things we would be outraged about become ho-hum when the US is doing something that seems more extreme.
And how many Canadian policies are directly linked to what the US does?
A lot of faces missing in that basket.
ddd
Nervous Democrats Fret About Clinton’s Stumbles as Race Tightens
Prominent Democrats have tough words for Clinton as some Democrats worry she’ll squander her advantage against Trump.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-13/nervous-democrats-...
Is the basket destined for hell or are we going in place of it?
Alan your picture illustrates the value of an article.