News Clinton Vs Trump

[hodge]

I wonder, too, Casey. He stated publicly that Pence could be in charge of domestic and foreign affairs. Umm, isn't that the president's job?

I've heard talk about him wanting to get a news network out of this (hence, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon), which would be pretty dangerous territory if he were president. A state-controlled news outlet??? The U.S. has not seen the likes, at least not that I know of.

Trump is about himself. Period.

 

[Deleted member 12723]

I have been doing so much to educate myself and I find the conversations here filled with assumptions, and speculations which are not facts.

Hillary is under a more intense investigation at the moment which will drag a lot of high power people into the investigation and with her being sick with Parkinsons, quote by Dr Drew who was fired after exposing this fact.

I may not be able to post a link but it can be found by anyone doing a Google search.

I have been going to social media for my news reporting and have been learning so much. I still support and will vote for Trump and I refuse to debate anyone on this personal choice and I will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Dr Drew who was fired after exposing this fact.

Mucho respect for Dr Drew whom had a direct hand in my therapy!

I also am finding it very hard to find facts this election. Its quite frustrating!

ETA: Dead Link Removed

'Dr. Drew' Was Not Canceled Because of His Hillary Clinton Remarks

Which one to believe? That's my point.

 

[joeylittle]

with her being sick with Parkinsons, quote by Dr Drew who was fired after exposing this fact.

I'm sorry, but this is very, very far from a fact.

An anesthesiologist has written an anonymous 'analysis' of HRC's health. This is from the end of the four-page letter:

It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance. But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would clear.

The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience. That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions, but not the expertise to evaluate PD signs and symptoms.

Link Removed

OK, so a guy who does anesthesia for a living makes a diagnosis of Parkinsons over the internet...at least he has the grace to deliver those disclaimers at the end, that he is utterly unqualified to do so.

Dr. Drew's show was announced as being cancelled shortly after he went on a radio interview stating his Clinton has Parkinsons opinion. But, so was Nancy Grace's show, same network - and she had been on there 12 years to Dr. Drew's 5. They are replacing that programming with more news content.

I have been going to social media for my news reporting and have been learning so much.

That's the road to ruin, right there.

I still support and will vote for Trump and I refuse to debate anyone on this personal choice and I will respectfully agree to disagree.

That's fine, that's your choice. And you don't need to back it up with any facts at all. But what you posted here as facts are nothing but speculations, and so far, unfounded ones.

 

[sedna]

I'm sorry, but this is very, very far from a fact.

An anesthesiologist has written an anonymous 'an...

He got through med school as an MD or DO with all of their training focus based in anesthesiology. You could say that a podiatrist thinks Hilary has Parkinson's and would be just as valuable.

Lets ask her gynecologist if she has it, because at least that doctor would have her medical records.

 

[sedna]

He got through med school as an MD or DO with all of their training focus based in anesthesiology. You...

Sorry, I didnt make it clear I was agreeing with your point @joeylittle

 

[lostforgottensoul]

He got through med school as an MD or DO with all of their training focus based in anesthesiology.

Dr Drew is an Internalist, a GP.

That quote was from an Anesthesiologist, but not Dr Drew.

Not sure which one you were refering to. Sorry.

I do agree that we need more health records, or even a health work up on both. Though Im unsure why the issue as Trump's health 'paragraph' is a joke! So we're just finding ammunition? Quite predictable really!

 

[Casey_03]

I have to say, I respect everyone's right to make a choice and vote for who they want. But doing a Google search for accurate information is really not reliable, nor is relying on social media. You can find literally any conspiracy theory you want by doing those things, conspiracy theory presented as fact. I say this as a journalist with a decade of experience in media analysis -- there are so many propaganda outlets out there it would blow your mind. News isn't really vetted anymore. I could write up an article right now claiming Trump is actually a woman, and it would get published and presented as fact. And I could do the same for Clinton, claiming she's actually a man and citing anonymous "sources." And that would get published and people would believe it. My point is, if you're looking to find dirt on a certain candidate, you will find it. But that doesn't make it true.

I think the best way to assess the candidates is to evaluate their record throughout the years, what they've promised to do versus what they've actually done, etc. The rest of the stuff in the media is really just white noise; it's there to dirty the waters.

 

[sedna]

I have to say, I respect everyone's right to make a choice and vote for who they want. But doing a Goo...

The problem with that, Casey, is that most people rely on Google for that kind of information. If you're not directly tied to either candidate through business or politics, then the media outlets and internet are all the voting public have to go by.

At best, people can do some research on finding which global news agencies are known for being unbiased. There's no such thing, but those sources have much better filters.

 

[Casey_03]

@coco9 Yeah, you're right, that's a very good point. I should clarify -- Google searches are fine if you are careful about what sources you believe. But if you just search for "Clinton health crisis" and believe all the stories that pop up, that's just flat-out dangerous. There are loads of shady, obscure sites out there masquerading as "news publications." They look like proper news outlets, but they are not. So, yeah, I agree with you that the best thing to do is just figure out which publications are semi-trustworthy. All media outlets are biased in some way, you just have to find the ones that are less biased than others.

 

[hodge]

I was a reference book writer and editor for almost 20 years. My job was similar to Casey's in that it required I know how to analyze information and only present that which is trustworthy. We had a "three source" rule. If three reliable sources cited the same information, we felt confident in sharing it. But knowing the reliable sources is the trick. For this political season, I would say the tried and true The New York Times and The Washington Post. CNN and MSNBC. There are a couple political blogs I think are pretty good written by people with good contacts, but there's really no reason to go beyond the above sources unless you want to read conspiracy theories.

 

[joeylittle]

The New York Times and The Washington Post. CNN and MSNBC.

I think, in these partisan times, a better rule is to look for four and try and make sure two are slanted 'conservative' and two 'liberal' (I'm using those terms very loosely). Then, add one from each extreme end.

After you've read through those, you'll have enough information to evaluate fact vs. interpretation vs. agenda/opinion...