Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

1…304305307309310…332

Comments

  • #9182
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...or, more likely, the hype attributed to that one single tweet was completely exaggerated. I wonder why anyone would want to do that.

    From what I've been able to gather, Siri will tell you showtimes of movies that are showing near you later today. This person asked about the movie, was told that it wasn't showing near him that day, and he concocted a conspiracy theory.

    There have been numerous complaints against Apple’s Siri for it’s pro Hillary and Left bias. And they’re in good company... Google, Facebook and Twitter. And we should all ignore the fact that Apple’s CEO Tim Cook hosted a $50,000-per-ticket Hillary fundraiser. Nothing to see here, please move along?


  • #9183
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Seemed odd alright....

    The dark heart of the democratic party was laid bare for all to see but the media worked very hard to make it a story about Vladi pulling strings.

    If that is the dark heart I am pretty happy. They said no homo and some members of the dnc were not as unbiased as they should have been.

    I expected worse. You are grasping at straws to try and find something to make Hillary a scarier option than Trump and you will need a lot more to come close.


  • #9184
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Regarding the Economist… You need to understand the differences of the UK and the USA when applying monikers like Left, Center, and Right. Much of what is considered Center in the UK is viewed as Progressive/ Left here in the states. Even what many would consider Right in the UK would be considered Left of Center here in the States. I think that is something that is often overlooked by Europeans when discussing US Politics.

    Many of their economic issues, though usually conservative in nature, do often lean to the Left with approvals of privatization government assets, support Keynesian policies, climate change and cap-and-trade schemes or a carbon tax, as examples. I don’t think there could be any argument that they are Liberal when it comes to social issues. And regarding foreign policy, they believe a liberal democracy is the best form of government.

    I have examples of journalist admitting there is a liberal bias in the media for you. But I doubt anything matters much, and there is no proof that will suffice in the opinions the majority here regarding the fact that a liberal media bias exists. Probably the best thing to do is to quote Mark Twain: “Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”

    http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-one

    http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-two

    I live in Ireland. The centre right in Ireland is pretty much the same as it is in the US. Both countries are equally socially conservative and governments in both countries spend similar amounts relative to GDP and have pretty comparable levels of regulation. You seem to be forgetting that the loudest voices in the Republican Party are the far-right people like Ted Cruz and not moderates like Romney or McCain. Easy to do when large swathes of Republican politicians didn't want to be associated with the insanity that was this years Republican Convention.

    You're using some pretty weird examples there. This is 2016 not the 1970s, there is no such thing as Keynesian economics anymore, there is mainstream economics and heterodox economics, good economics and bad economics. What exactly do you mean by "Keynesian economics"? There's nothing left wing about supporting a carbon tax. The science says that carbon emissions resulting from human activity are causing climate change. The science also says that the best way to prevent further climate change is through a carbon tax or cap and trade. This isn't a matter of left wing vs. right wing, it's a matter of being pro or anti-science.

    What has their support for liberal democracy got to do with anything? America has a liberal democracy. Fair enough Trump would like to turn the country in fascistic democracy/dictatorship but at the moment it is a liberal democracy.

    You seem to be leaving out the Economist's staunch support for economic liberalism and fiscal responsibility from the first time it was published.
    Amerika wrote: »
    When did this happen?

    Last week. I'd imagine the far right news organisations didn't bother covering something that would make Trump look bad.


  • #9185
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Last week. I'd imagine the far right news organisations didn't bother covering something that would make Trump look bad.

    I read news from outlets considered Left, Center and Right. You probably missed it when it was shown that claim is rubbish put out by a biased media.

    I’ll link my response, as there is no reason to rehash it all over again.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100536111&postcount=9114


  • #9186
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Regarding the Economist… You need to understand the differences of the UK and the USA when applying monikers like Left, Center, and Right. Much of what is considered Center in the UK is viewed as Progressive/ Left here in the states. Even what many would consider Right in the UK would be considered Left of Center here in the States. I think that is something that is often overlooked by Europeans when discussing US Politics.

    Many of their economic issues, though usually conservative in nature, do often lean to the Left with approvals of privatization government assets, support Keynesian policies, climate change and cap-and-trade schemes or a carbon tax, as examples. I don’t think there could be any argument that they are Liberal when it comes to social issues. And regarding foreign policy, they believe a liberal democracy is the best form of government.

    I have examples of journalist admitting there is a liberal bias in the media for you. But I doubt anything matters much, and there is no proof that will suffice in the opinions the majority here regarding the fact that a liberal media bias exists. Probably the best thing to do is to quote Mark Twain: “Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”

    http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-one

    http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-two

    Could you not find an a non-partisan organisation to back up your claims?
    Amerika wrote: »
    I read news from outlets considered Left, Center and Right. You probably missed it when it was shown that claim is rubbish put out by a biased media.

    I’ll link my response, as there is no reason to rehash it all over again.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100536111&postcount=9114

    "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing"


  • Advertisement
  • #9187
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The trailer for which refers to the Clintons as "depraved crooks" and the DNC as the "party of corruption".

    That's not a documentary; it's a polemic.

    You must have missed the same guy's 2012 installment, "Obama's America" - http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-america-2016-2012-9

    Come back in 4-8 years for the final piece in the trilogy, I'm betting on "Booker's America" but I think we all know what the director really wants - "Castro's America"... and so do I, kind of. It could be this century's 'Reefer Madness' by the sounds of it!


  • #9188
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    The focus on Trump/Putin when the DNC corruption was exposed last week should tell you all you need to know re bias.

    See, here it is again. What is it that is so unfair about the media literally repeating what Trump says? Not sure of your own leanings, but it really does seem to annoy his own supporters quite a lot, and more and more so lately as his comments have become increasingly unhinged.

    You'd almost swear they were trying to avoid reality.


  • #9189
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/

    Interesting read on what Hillary Clinton offers the world, and it explains why Trump is less of a threat to the world than Hillary.


  • #9190
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Could you not find an a non-partisan organisation to back up your claims?
    Do you seriously think the biased media would admit to their bias?

    But I give CNN a little bit of credit for their attempt at admitting the truth. Although that was before they became the Clinton News Network for this election.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/17/cnns-zucker-admits-network-liberal/
    "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing"
    Taken out of context... just as I expected you to do.


  • #9191
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Amerika wrote: »
    Do you seriously think the biased media would admit to their bias?

    But I give CNN a little bit of credit for their attempt at admitting the truth. Although that was before they became the Clinton News Network for this election.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/17/cnns-zucker-admits-network-liberal/


    Taken out of context... just as I expected you to do.

    Of course the biased media would admit to their bias, just look at how directly the Washington Post and MSNBC are integrated into the Democrats, the Democrats ringing up these media outlets telling them what they should and should not broadcast/write.
    The free media... :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #9192
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Do you seriously think the biased media would admit to their bias?

    But I give CNN a little bit of credit for their attempt at admitting the truth. Although that was before they became the Clinton News Network for this election.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/17/cnns-zucker-admits-network-liberal/

    Do you think that a conservative think tank set up to fuel conservative conspiracy theories is really the best way to prove your point? Surely you could use a non-partisan think tank or you could even quote some peer-reviewed research if you really wanted to impress us.

    CNN's staff being liberals doesn't mean there was any bias in their content. Can you actually provide any credible source showing media outlets giving an unfair representation of Republican views or politicians or is it all conspiracy theory websites and far-right media outlets?
    Taken out of context... just as I expected you to do.

    There was nothing he said either side of that quote that changes what he said in that quote. The quote was very much in context.


  • #9193
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,849 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/

    Interesting read on what Hillary Clinton offers the world, and it explains why Trump is less of a threat to the world than Hillary.

    Heh. A couple of choice quotes from early in the article:
    ...Gorbachev naïvely ended the Cold War...
    ...the demonization of Vladimir Putin...
    I think it's clear where the interviewee is coming from.

    As for Trump being less of a threat than Hillary: she seems to arrive at that conclusion by paying as little attention to Trump as possible. Basically, she takes almost the exact same approach as you do: "Hillary is so bad that I don't care how bad her opponent is, he couldn't possibly be that bad." I wonder if she performs the same mental gymnastics you've exhibited here in the process.


  • #9194
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Do you think that a conservative think tank set up to fuel conservative conspiracy theories is really the best way to prove your point? Surely you could use a non-partisan think tank or you could even quote some peer-reviewed research if you really wanted to impress us.

    CNN's staff being liberals doesn't mean there was any bias in their content. Can you actually provide any credible source showing media outlets giving an unfair representation of Republican views or politicians or is it all conspiracy theory websites and far-right media outlets?



    There was nothing he said either side of that quote that changes what he said in that quote. The quote was very much in context.

    I have provided plenty of legitimate information that you choose to attack the source rather than the content. Disingenuous, but the standard response tactic from those on the Left regarding information they don’t like, IMO.

    Rather than keep butting heads, it is probably best to agree to disagree.


  • #9195
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Amerika wrote: »
    I read news from outlets considered Left, Center and Right. You probably missed it when it was shown that claim is rubbish put out by a biased media.

    I’ll link my response, as there is no reason to rehash it all over again.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100536111&postcount=9114
    Nope.

    He said it probably was not Russia, but that he still hopes they can find the emails for him - in the same sentence. Another example of Trump fans getting p*ssed off at the media for literally repeating what he said.

    "And if it is Russia - which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is - but if it is Russia, it shows how bad it is for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they could hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see, I, I will tell you this: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."



  • #9196
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    I have provided plenty of legitimate information that you choose to attack the source rather than the content. Disingenuous, but the standard response tactic from those on the Left regarding information they don’t like, IMO.

    Rather than keep butting heads, it is probably best to agree to disagree.

    You've provided a partisan think tank and an ultra-conservative news site. On what planet could they be considered legitimate?

    It'd probably be best if you could provide credible sources to back up your claims instead of ignoring posts that show you to be wrong and then make the same refuted claims a couple of posts later.


  • #9197
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Heh. A couple of choice quotes from early in the article: I think it's clear where the interviewee is coming from.

    As for Trump being less of a threat than Hillary: she seems to arrive at that conclusion by paying as little attention to Trump as possible. Basically, she takes almost the exact same approach as you do: "Hillary is so bad that I don't care how bad her opponent is, he couldn't possibly be that bad." I wonder if she performs the same mental gymnastics you've exhibited here in the process.


    It could be argued the former Soviet Union was deceived, given what they got out of it.

    It was the Soviet Union where a leader of the USSR gave Crimea to Ukraine. Nikita Khrushchev though Russian, spent his formative years living in Ukraine, so he gave Ukraine a present of Crimea, never thinking the Soviet Union would fall apart in the future.
    It was a severe error by Khrushchev as Crimea was always a part of Russia until then.

    Putin is demonised, where are the sanctions on the US and it's allies for destroying Iraq and Libya?
    If Putin had done these atrocities and led to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, he would not be allowed to walk around freely outside his country like the leaders who went and actually destroyed countries.

    Trump has talked about working to get along with Russia. Hillary has always being hostile. Which is the great danger in this scenario?
    I have not yet heard Trump say he would obliterate Iran like Hillary has, and even last year she was still talking about a war with Iran. Well that would really set off far bigger consequences for the world, she wants to attack a Russia ally, just as she wanted to remove Assad, another Russia ally.
    It is quite clear that Hillary wants to surround Russia with American allies, or have the countries in such a mess they offer nothing to Russia.
    This makes Hillary Clinton a very dangerous person, Obama applied brakes when it came to using the military, Hillary has always pressed on the accelerator.
    Hillary really is the worst candidate in the field and that is some achievement.


  • #9198
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    You've provided a partisan think tank and an ultra-conservative news site. On what planet could they be considered legitimate?

    It'd probably be best if you could provide credible sources to back up your claims instead of ignoring posts that show you to be wrong and then make the same refuted claims a couple of posts later.

    Again, please show me where any of the quotes or information in the links I provided are incorrect. I suspect you are unable to do that, as they apparently are legitimate, so it’s best to consider this part of the conservation at an end.


  • #9199
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Again, please show me where any of the quotes or information in the links I provided are incorrect. I suspect you are unable to do that, as they apparently are legitimate, so it’s best to consider this part of the conservation at an end.

    One of your links claimed that a network admitting to having a large number of liberal staff members was them admitting that their coverage was biased. Before that you gave two links to a conservative conspiracy theory website and didn't even bother quoting from those links. If you're too lazy to read them and provide some relevant quotes then don't expect me to waste my time reading them.


  • #9200
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Moving on... At the current time it doesn’t look like Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson nor Green Party candidate Jill Stein will be invited to the Presidential debates. Johnson is polling at 8% and Stein at 4%.

    The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the threshold at “15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly reported results at the time of the determination.”

    Personally, I would like to see Johnson at the debates even though it would probably pull votes away from Trump. Stein wouldn’t do much to take anything away from Clinton, but would still be interesting.

    I think the nation would be better served hearing from candidates that have some traction in the election, rather then just from the big two.


  • #9201
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Again, please show me where any of the quotes or information in the links I provided are incorrect. I suspect you are unable to do that, as they apparently are legitimate, so it’s best to consider this part of the conservation at an end.

    I just read through one of pages on that conspiracy theory website. If that's the best you can do then you should stop claiming there's some sort of bias against Republicans. A number of the quotes are examples of the media being biased towards Republican politicians.

    There's no hard data in the link either. Just a bunch of quotes and hearsay.

    I'm going to ask again, do you have any credible source to support your claim that the media is biased against Republicans? I won't hold my breath.


  • Advertisement
  • #9202
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Amerika wrote: »
    Again, please show me where any of the quotes or information in the links I provided are incorrect. I suspect you are unable to do that, as they apparently are legitimate, so it’s best to consider this part of the conservation at an end.
    Good thing the internet is able to play media, then. Here is the full quote, because you must have missed it when I quoted it a few posts back.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Nope.

    He said it probably was not Russia, but that he still hopes they can find the emails for him - in the same sentence. Another example of Trump fans getting p*ssed off at the media for literally repeating what he said.

    "And if it is Russia - which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is - but if it is Russia, it shows how bad it is for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they could hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see, I, I will tell you this: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."



  • #9203
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    I just read through one of pages on that conspiracy theory website. If that's the best you can do then you should stop claiming there's some sort of bias against Republicans. A number of the quotes are examples of the media being biased towards Republican politicians.

    There's no hard data in the link either. Just a bunch of quotes and hearsay.

    I'm going to ask again, do you have any credible source to support your claim that the media is biased against Republicans? I won't hold my breath.



    Oh bother... a quick google search brought up some sources even you would have a problem classifying as Right Wing. I only perused them, but they all come to the same conclusion... the media has a liberal bias.

    http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf
    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/Structure_of_Political_Media_Coverage_files/quoting_patterns.pdf
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664
    http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-of-liberal-bias-in-hollywood-media-and-academia-2014-11

    Somehow, I don’t think any of it matters, and you will go down with the ship clinging to your viewpoints.

    Bon voyage... And now I'm really done on the matter. If you need to have the last word... then go for it, with my blessing. :rolleyes:


  • #9204
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    538's nowcast is gives Clinton a 83.5% chance of winning the election if it were held today. Its polls plus forecast gives her a 65.4% chance of winning in November.

    Speaking of 538, I enjoyed this tweet from Nate Silver:

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/760500953971818496


  • #9205
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Amerika wrote: »
    Oh bother... a quick google search brought up some sources even you would have a problem classifying as Right Wing. I only perused them, but they all come to the same conclusion... the media has a liberal bias.

    http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf
    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/Structure_of_Political_Media_Coverage_files/quoting_patterns.pdf
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664
    http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-of-liberal-bias-in-hollywood-media-and-academia-2014-11

    Somehow, I don’t think any of it matters, and you will go down with the ship clinging to your viewpoints.

    Bon voyage... And now I'm really done on the matter. If you need to have the last word... then go for it, with my blessing. :rolleyes:

    It's about time that you backed up your views with something credible. I was going to continue arguing about this until I realised that the media being biased against Republicans is a good thing. If the Republican Party is so intellectually and morally bankrupt that it ended up nominating a lying, racist, misogynistic, narcissist like Donald Trump to run for president then it deserves to come up against a biased media. I want news organisations to be staffed by decent, intelligent people. If the Republican Party wants a fair hearing from the media then maybe it should drop the anti-intellectualism and bigotry from its policy platform.


  • #9206
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    YouGov polled the G20 nations on the US presidential election. Unsurprisingly her lead was greatest in Mexico with her leading Trump by 54%. Also unsurprisingly the only country Trump beat her was Russia.


  • #9207
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Amerika wrote: »
    Aren't those on the Right mostly Fox News viewers? Aren't those on the Left mostly MSNBC viewers? As I said they play to their audience. People tend to tune into news programs that support their political ideals.
    This is a fruitless labeling argument, whereupon many of us chase our tails in circles without meaningful resolution. Unfortunately, we all find ourselves caught in this lazy and convenient left vs right trap at times, that lacks validity and reliability, especially during emotive and highly subjective presidential elections. For example:

    These left vs right distinctions were 2-dimensional categorisations that were too simplistic for the real world. For example, there can be different ideological dimensions by editors, departments, reporters, and guest opinions within one news agency. Or when attempting to lump a publication like The Economist in with MSNBC or Fox News becomes meaningless, where The Economist articles may vary greatly in style, content, context, special issue, and exhibit more scholarly publications that may include a variety of political dimensions to such an extent that 2-dimensional simplistic comparisons have little utility and can be misleading.

    Such left vs right distinctions fail to have universal application globally, regionally, nationally, between cities, and for counties or states or territories within nations. For example, what someone might subjectively label left or right in Dublin or Galway or Cork could vary, and even more so between British Columbia and Québec in Canada, or between Alabama and California and Puerto Rico in the USA, or between Ireland and America, or America and China and Saudi Arabia and India. Or between the cities of Irvine and Cambria in California, or Austin and Crawford in Texas. And if you have stayed in Austin for awhile, what is viewed subjectively as left or right can vary between Hyde Park, University of Texas Austin, and the Capitol Complex, and where many joke that although Austin is the Capitol of Texas, it's really not Texas.

    Furthermore, to simply label a US presidential candidate as more left or more right can be a huge lazy misleading oversimplification, when looking at their specific platform policies that may span across one end to the other of these terribly subjective, unreliable, and spurious 2-dimensions. Just like if you label a candidate Lutheran, which, if you know the differences between the Lutheran ELCA and the Lutheran Missouri Synod in America, the oversimplistic and lazy generic Lutheran label is terribly misleading and essentially meaningless.


  • #9208
    ECO_Mental
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,666 ✭✭✭ECO_Mental


    Is there no demographic Trump is prepared to alienate

    Mexicans
    Women
    Black people
    War veterans
    Families of veterans
    Dems
    Media
    Anybody that criticises him

    And now BABIES....... You cannot make this stuff up :)


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-kicks-out-baby-rally-226566

    6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City



  • #9209
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Typical left wing media conspiracy, trying to get make Trump look bad again quoting Trump on exactly what he said, and even having the cheek to show a video of it too.


  • #9210
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Wasn't someone claiming that Roger Stone has nothing to do with Trump or his campaign lately? Because that same Roger Stone just wrote an impassioned defense of Donald Trump in response to John McCain condemning him for the whole insulting a dead soldier's family thing. And Roger Stone wrote it for... who else, Breitbart!

    My favourite part is when he called McCain "a headline hog who courts controversy in order to get his name in print".

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/everything-need-know-donald-trump-khizr-khan/


  • Advertisement
  • #9211
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    538's nowcast is gives Clinton a 83.5% chance of winning the election if it were held today. Its polls plus forecast gives her a 65.4% chance of winning in November.

    Speaking of 538, I enjoyed this tweet from Nate Silver:

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/760500953971818496

    Just as Hillary will prove my point when it comes to her being a warmonger.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement