reub wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:uh oh! The IBD poll that conservatives love has Clinton at +1

They are also sampling Democrats at +8 but either way its well within the margin of error.

The IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll of 873 likely voters has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.6 percentage points. It has a weighted response of 308 Democrats, 257 Republicans and 292 people who called themselves either "independents" or "other."

So in their official release, they have Hillary with a 0.8% lead (which they rounded to 1). I'm assuming that significantly more than 0.8% of their sample said they would be voting for Hillary than for Trump, and then they adjusted the result based on weighting.

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:Obamacare premiums are rising by 25% on average. Many providers are just pulling out. Democrats will be paying the price as they should.

How much was health care going up per year before Obamacare? I think it was about the same. Huge annual increases in health care costs were a problem long before Obamacare. Health care has simply been increasing in cost at a fast rate for a long time.

Excellent answer Bonn. And everyone should also note: the subsidies for the plans are also going up. I don't know that they will net out but these things should be put together along with the natural rise in health care that Bonn notes.

If you want to complain about something, you also best understand a wider perspective of what is happening in general.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I have been a way for a few days, and in terms of "thread years" this is old, so I wont rehash this.

You asked, so I will answer :)

How do we learn that? According to White House Logs, Creamer made over 300 visits to the WH since 2009 and over 40 times with Potus. Creamer (a convicted felon) is one of the people in the video and was (since fired or otherwise removed) in fact the head guy at the super PAC. Which leads me to the conclusion that higher ups were involved. Now, in video 3, we learn according to Creamer, that HRC was aware of the workings of the agitators and specifically wanted the Donald Ducks at DJT rallies. From what I understand, the communication of candidate, DNC and Super PAC is a violation of Campaign Finance Law but I could be wrong.

Your instincts are correct. Creamer is not an officer of superpac as far as I understand.

And as with EMS, I cannot dispute the conclusion you've been led to make, i can only correctly identify that is what it is.

I've been clear this should be investigated. Including, as with the Donald Duck thing, if these plans were actually executed. I've never seen any footage of Donald Duck at Trump rallies. But if they were just once, I don't defend it.

I'm simply agnostic about conclusions for two reasons: What the tapes don't specifically tell us (which you and ESM both acknowledge) and in something we'll get to in a minute, why this information is being distributed in the manner it is.

IF this is indeed so important, wouldn't it make sense to make the full raw footage available, along with more complete, dispassionate written account of the findings. I think there is reason to be skeptical of information packaged along with sinister X-Files background music. That decision isn't made in a vacuum.

And it's not like Veritas hasn't been called out about manipulating video before.

As for sources, in more recent posts, you ask that another poster check his sources as the poster is perhaps being manipulated. You've sent me to NPR and Mother Jones on previous occasions. By sending these, are you making the contention that these are not manipulative ? I am sure you know I would disagree.

I'm not. I'm saying being practiced in recognizing the techniques in general make you better able to filter raw information from leading conclusions in general ... from whichever bent it's coming from.

We have now seen that HRC campaign has been linked to 65 members of the media recently. We also have seen countless of links thru Wikileaks of the HRC campaign to supposedly un-biased journalists.

There is no such thing as an unbiased journalist. Until we invent the Roboreporter 2000, the idea is a unicorn. It is a white whale.

There is, however, to some degree, unbiased journalISM. That is what you go to school and train on the job to learn - the difference between reporting a story and writing a blog.

That we reject in the idea of unbiased journalism whole cloth and can't even entertain the distinction can exist is a symptom of cynicism steeped in ignorance, which I'd argue isn't a good thing.

People can remove their personal passion from reporting facts. It is entirely possible.

The NYT Trump tweet thing yesterday. I don't disagree the NYT has an editorial slant. And I recognize the intended effect of packaging the info as they did.

But I can also recognize its relevance at the same time. I can recognize its fairness at the same time. The Republican nominee for President DID do all those things, in unprecedented fashion. It does speak to his character and perhaps future conduct as President.

Saying the NYT and/or the mainstream press is bias doesn't cancel out what Trump is himself responsible for. That's all I'm arguing.

What draws us to certain sources? Is it pre-programmed ? Is it that those sources re-inforce a belief that we already have? Why is it easy for one to believe their own source is not manipulative while the others have to be?

Cable news exists so that people can see their biases reflected back to them, to affirm the judgment and intelligence of the watcher. That's no secret. People want to hear people on television agree with them and make them feel good.

No argument whatsoever.

All I'm saying if recognizing the tools of manipulation from wherever the source goes a LONG way in acting as a buffer, whatever your leaning happens to be.

You're smart enough to see the techniques used in 30 second campaign ads. The unflattering photos in black and white. The loud sound effects to emphasize a point. The tone and pitch of the voiceover. The manipulation of linking disparate pieces of information to draw a dubious conclusion.

There is a difference between that and a Mother Jones article. The Project Veritas stuff leans more toward the former. The negative info dump EMS linked to is ANOTHER more overt technique. Doesn't mean there isn't worthwhile info within it, but the packaging has intent.

Why can one side hate DJT for all his lies but look the other way with all HRC's lies?

The answer to the question is quite obvious. I can see you already know it.

Also BTW - the name in the Enquirer Fixer story has been released.

Okay, what was been the follow-up to that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-blaming-russia-for-wikileaks-to_us_580dbb26e4b099c4343198ff?

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:Obamacare premiums are rising by 25% on average. Many providers are just pulling out. Democrats will be paying the price as they should.

How much was health care going up per year before Obamacare? I think it was about the same. Huge annual increases in health care costs were a problem long before Obamacare. Health care has simply been increasing in cost at a fast rate for a long time.

Bonn, you're helping propagate misinformation this way. Rueb doesn't understand what he's regurgitating. By responding to his post like he does just exasperates the problem.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:for your reading pleasures...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-blaming-russia-for-wikileaks-to_us_580dbb26e4b099c4343198ff?

So is the conclusion here the Intelligence Community is under the control of Hilary Clinton?

Because THAT's who's blaming wikileaks on the Russians.

I'm not sure the use of the term "the Intelligence Community" is entirely accurate. Revising this post...

A number of American cybersecurity firms experts have identified Russian intelligence groups as the source of the "Guccifer 2.0" hacks, along with the US intelligence community. But The Russian goverment and Assange deny this.

Well, the Russians can't confirm it, so I wouldn't count their denial as relevant info.

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

It ain't strong with me either! I am getting a little tired of the Trump supporter bashing. Have we learned nothing from SNL and Tom Hanks?

AM New York — that free subway paper — endorsed Hillary but I thought the way they laid out the case against Donald Trump was revealing, giving him credit for what he has been able to do politically while acknowledging he is not likely to have the skills to pull it off.

EDITORIAL
Donald Trump cannot be president. Here’s why
By The Editorial Board October 24, 2016
http://www.amny.com/opinion/editorial/donald-trump-cannot-be-president-here-s-why-1.12491929

THE BOTTOM LINE

- The flaw in Donald Trump’s candidacy is that his best promises are fairy tales, but his worst attributes are real.
- Our leaders must address the needs Trump deftly identified. He has proved himself singularly incapable of doing so.

A political novice like Donald Trump couldn’t have caught fire, built a deeply loyal following and defeated 16 experienced candidates without saying something many people found compelling. The Republican nominee did this from the start, with some important, honest statements, and some untrue and ugly ones.

It’s no coincidence that many of the most compelling points the New York billionaire made were also stressed by the Democratic Party’s upstart candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both men were convincing in their attacks on a system in which big-money contributors buy politicians, elections and laws. The two targeted the ruling class of politicians and powerful supporters who so often rig the game to their advantage.
And both men caught the mood of the moment when they attacked treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement as unfair and poorly negotiated. There is a sense among many Americans that these deals have sent good jobs out of the country to mostly benefit wealthy corporations without safeguarding our workers or industries.

Increased automation and outsourcing of jobs have been changing this country for decades. Establishment politicians from both parties have ignored the pain the changes have caused. Hard data show the middle class is shrinking on Long Island and across the nation. The government has to do more to restore the growth of this bedrock segment of our society, a point Trump made brilliantly.

Trump also deviated from mainstream Republican philosophy to his benefit and credit. He never told a GOP base increasingly dependent on the social safety net that he planned to slash programs like food stamps, Medicare or Social Security to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. There is no political future for the Republican Party if it insists on continuing to make such a promise.

And Trump gave voice to the widely held belief that government is a maddening bastion of incompetence and inefficiency that needs a free-market nudge.

But Trump also said terrible things, and it is disheartening that some of his most vehement supporters seemed to be more attracted to his travesties than his truths.

Trump kicked off his campaign by saying Mexico sends us rapists and drug dealers. His degradations of women are revolting to hear and impossible to explain away. His presumptions that Muslims are dangerous and that all black people live in crime-ridden neighborhoods and have no jobs are ignorant and bizarre.

Trump flouted crucial traditions like the release of tax returns by nominees. And rather than the hoped-for pivot to an acceptable general election campaign after the primaries, Trump began cynically attacking and questioning our treasured institutions: the rights of a free press and freedom of religion, the judicial system, and the credibility of the FBI. Worst of all, in a pre-emptive move to explain away his likely loss, he claimed an unfounded fear of fake votes and a “rigged” election that could be heard by his most vehement fans as a justification for Election Day vigilantism.

Trump never said how he would defeat the Islamic State, or force China or Russia or Mexico or any nation to do his bidding. He never said how he’d rebuild the military or the nation’s infrastructure, how he’d improve education or health care or pay for his tax cuts.

The flaw in Trump’s candidacy is that his best promises are fairy tales, but his worst attributes are real. He can’t bring back 1950s-style manufacturing jobs, immediately end illegal immigration or quickly squelch terrorism. But he would bring callous indifference and divisiveness to our society and furious, impetuous and ignorant leadership to the White House. Three times in debates with Hillary Clinton he tried to remain calm and presidential. Not once could he keep his cool for even 90 minutes.

Our leaders must address the needs Trump deftly identified. He has proved himself singularly incapable of doing so.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Nalod wrote:Math is not strong among Trump supporters.

It ain't strong with me either! I am getting a little tired of the Trump supporter bashing. Have we learned nothing from SNL and Tom Hanks?

AM New York — that free subway paper — endorsed Hillary but I thought the way they laid out the case against Donald Trump was revealing, giving him credit for what he has been able to do politically while acknowledging he is not likely to have the skills to pull it off.

EDITORIAL
Donald Trump cannot be president. Here’s why
By The Editorial Board October 24, 2016
http://www.amny.com/opinion/editorial/donald-trump-cannot-be-president-here-s-why-1.12491929

THE BOTTOM LINE

- The flaw in Donald Trump’s candidacy is that his best promises are fairy tales, but his worst attributes are real.
- Our leaders must address the needs Trump deftly identified. He has proved himself singularly incapable of doing so.

A political novice like Donald Trump couldn’t have caught fire, built a deeply loyal following and defeated 16 experienced candidates without saying something many people found compelling. The Republican nominee did this from the start, with some important, honest statements, and some untrue and ugly ones.

It’s no coincidence that many of the most compelling points the New York billionaire made were also stressed by the Democratic Party’s upstart candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both men were convincing in their attacks on a system in which big-money contributors buy politicians, elections and laws. The two targeted the ruling class of politicians and powerful supporters who so often rig the game to their advantage.
And both men caught the mood of the moment when they attacked treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement as unfair and poorly negotiated. There is a sense among many Americans that these deals have sent good jobs out of the country to mostly benefit wealthy corporations without safeguarding our workers or industries.

Increased automation and outsourcing of jobs have been changing this country for decades. Establishment politicians from both parties have ignored the pain the changes have caused. Hard data show the middle class is shrinking on Long Island and across the nation. The government has to do more to restore the growth of this bedrock segment of our society, a point Trump made brilliantly.

Trump also deviated from mainstream Republican philosophy to his benefit and credit. He never told a GOP base increasingly dependent on the social safety net that he planned to slash programs like food stamps, Medicare or Social Security to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. There is no political future for the Republican Party if it insists on continuing to make such a promise.

And Trump gave voice to the widely held belief that government is a maddening bastion of incompetence and inefficiency that needs a free-market nudge.

But Trump also said terrible things, and it is disheartening that some of his most vehement supporters seemed to be more attracted to his travesties than his truths.

Trump kicked off his campaign by saying Mexico sends us rapists and drug dealers. His degradations of women are revolting to hear and impossible to explain away. His presumptions that Muslims are dangerous and that all black people live in crime-ridden neighborhoods and have no jobs are ignorant and bizarre.

Trump flouted crucial traditions like the release of tax returns by nominees. And rather than the hoped-for pivot to an acceptable general election campaign after the primaries, Trump began cynically attacking and questioning our treasured institutions: the rights of a free press and freedom of religion, the judicial system, and the credibility of the FBI. Worst of all, in a pre-emptive move to explain away his likely loss, he claimed an unfounded fear of fake votes and a “rigged” election that could be heard by his most vehement fans as a justification for Election Day vigilantism.

Trump never said how he would defeat the Islamic State, or force China or Russia or Mexico or any nation to do his bidding. He never said how he’d rebuild the military or the nation’s infrastructure, how he’d improve education or health care or pay for his tax cuts.

The flaw in Trump’s candidacy is that his best promises are fairy tales, but his worst attributes are real. He can’t bring back 1950s-style manufacturing jobs, immediately end illegal immigration or quickly squelch terrorism. But he would bring callous indifference and divisiveness to our society and furious, impetuous and ignorant leadership to the White House. Three times in debates with Hillary Clinton he tried to remain calm and presidential. Not once could he keep his cool for even 90 minutes.

Our leaders must address the needs Trump deftly identified. He has proved himself singularly incapable of doing so.

Good article. Trumps problem is that, while he says some things that sound good, he has no concrete plan to achieve his promises. In fact, much of what he promises is fiscally inpossible. Thus, to tbose people who realize this, it becomes clear that Trump is just spouting sound bites with no real plan. You couple this with the fact that he has no ability to control his anger or ego, and you have some who is dangerously unprepared and ill-suited to run a country.