News Clinton Vs Trump

[Justmehere]

I'm open with the fact that I'm neverTrump and it has almost nothing to do with Hillary's health. I don't actually want to see her medical records. The president represents the country and has some tremendous power, but I don't think this means we need to be allowed into all their health records. There has to be a line somewhere.

Trump's doctor has given a really strange letter but I don't want Trump's health records. At all. I really don't need to know about any of that to decide if he would lead the country in a healthy direction.

It almost feel vouyeristic to me to want all of that info. Like ew.

Let's say Hillary does have Parkinson's. Many have Parkinson's. It's a movement disorder. Doesn't make people bad people or bad leaders.

Bad choices make people bad leaders and Hillary has made quite a few. So has Trump.

We have enough about both leaders based on the way they act and what policies they proposed and how they lead - from their own mouths - that we also don't need to get too hung up on everyone's bias or opinions in the media. Social media is a terrible news spruces because nothing is fact checked and even more so, the algorithms behind socials media increase confrontation bias. Social media collects tons f data on everything we click and ten gives us more of whatever we click on - it doesn't seek to lead us to alternative viewpoints and data, but to give us what we want to like and see and read, not things that challenge us to refine our beliefs. (And I know @gizmo you are seeking to really be sure in what you believe and support and it's so good you seek out various news sources, but be very careful with social media. It's good for confining already held beliefs and not much else, on purpose.)

We all can look at primary sources about the candidates themselves and see the results of their leadership so far and make a decision about which one best represents us and who we think will best lead the nation.

Whoever anyone wants to vote for great, if you loved next to me and I could drive, I'd give you a ride to the polling station. Even if it's for someone else than who I would vote for. Disagreement isn't a discussion stopper for me.

I'd also suggest getting involved in the election. Do more than just vote. Volunteer. This can happen from someone's own home - but if doable, I'd encourage anyone to get out there, even if it's in support of someone else I don't like.

Volunteering in elections and political processes has taught me more about how I want this nation to be lead than anything I have read in any source or anything any of the candidates have ever said. It's helped me see the danger we are facing in the next few years and it's helped me know my neighbor's --- which I think is more important than even who we vote for in Novemeber. At the end of the day when the hard stuff happens in this nation, it's our neighbors and communities pulling together that's gonna help us get through more than whoever is sitting in the whitehouse.

And on another note, when has there ever been a headline of "Fedweal government does great job"? No really...

I think there's a point where we have to remember the peeaident can't fix all the ails us and I think in the election season so many people (I don't mean anyone here) are putting way too much hope in the next president to solve all our problems.

In the end, it's going to be we the people that bring this country to a better place. Or it's going to be we the people that destroy it.

 

[Justmehere]

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).

I very much agree with this. I would add in seeking out a libertarian/anarchist and a populist/statist slanting news source or two - since libertarian and statist views can be either left or right leaning, but reflect the other spectrum of political beliefs out there.

For news with a libertarian bias, Reason Magazine is a decent option. I'm personally still working out what is a good news source for news with a slight socialist bias. I know a ton of socialists but they generally follow MSNBC, CNN, BBC, etc or they jump to really extreme sites. So I'm still looking for a good alternative.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Google searches are fine if you are careful about what sources you believe.

@Justmehere and I were speaking about that somewhere and i was confused about washinton times (crap) and waahington post (better); so the crao sources can get creative.

Persoanlly in very careful of the outlet im beleiving. Im making sure as much as possible that outlet is sound, or as least bias.

I also try to find a few, and/or some that counter what im reading such I did today and i can say there is just as many sites that states Dr Drew was fired for his comment and sites that counter that, if not more.

If I can find sites that counter or cant find it in know good sources, i file it in my head as crap. If i can, i look at which sources are countering it. If theres info & countering info in known good sources, I dig to find the truth or find a few on each side and then look for the truth in the middle.

 

[joeylittle]

i can say there is just as many sites that states Dr Drew was fired for his comment and sites that counter that, if not more.

First off, he wasn't fired; his show wasn't renewed. Those are very different things. It's not like they are keeping the slot as the same kind of programming; they are replacing their programming.

But - here's the difference, and this is why the whole thing is ridiculous. There are facts, and there are theories. No one can state that a theory is a fact. (I'm going off on a rant here, it's not directed at you, @lostforgottensoul; it's directed at the situation.

Fact: The announcement that Drew's show was being cancelled came 8 days after Drew speculated about Clinton's health, on 'McIntyre in the Morning'.
Theory: CNN pressured HLN to cancel Drew's show, because CNN is pro-Clinton.

Fact: No-one in Drew's camp, at CNN, or HLN is drawing the connection between Drew's comments on Clinton and the announcement of his non-renewal.
Fact: Dr. Drew specifically denies the connection between his comments and his show cancellation.
Fact: Dr. Drew retracted his comments from the McIntyre show, saying that he was not holding himself to a high enough news standard.

The theory just doesn't make it's case. No-one is even trying to make a case for it. And when you look at all the rest of the facts, it's pretty clear why.

Fact: in June, HLN announced that Nancy Grace's long running show was being cancelled.
Fact: HLN has been announcing since June that they were re-shaping their line-up to move away from social media-influenced programming, to more straight news. They've announced three new shows for the Fall.
Fact: Dr. Drew's ratings have been trailing (ranking last) for cable news shows since 2013.

It's excellent click-bait, to hypothesize about the connection between his comments and the programming change. But sheer common sense says that HLN was dropping dead weight on their network, and dropping things that ran counter to their programming facelift. Nancy Grace wasn't let go because she said something bad about Clinton. And she was actually earning money for the network. Finally - this isn't even the first time Drew has commented on her health. He first did so back in January, when he talked about her 'brain damage' on his HLN show. Wouldn't they have done something then? If they cared?

Theories - especially conspiracy theories - thrive in the total absence of supporting facts. They even prefer for there to be no supporting facts, because that just bolsters the 'conspiracy' energy of the whole thing. Literally, the only connecting tissue between his radio comments and the HLN announcement is 8 days. 8 days. 8 days is a long time. To make sense of it, then you have to get into enormous amounts of effort going into threatening...someone with the lowest rated show on the network. It makes no sense at all. Frankly, it makes more sense to have the theory that he did it on purpose, knowing that the announcement was coming soon that his show was being dropped. It would give him a chance to look like the victim, instead of the failed TV show host. But why speculate on that, either?

Argh, I hate the media sometimes. Often. :banghead:

 

[lostforgottensoul]

First off, he wasn't fired; his show wasn't renewed. Those are very different things. It's not like they are keeping the slot as the same kind of programming; they are replacing their programming.

That's what I was saying. There are as many, if not more sites, that state the above there, as there are that incorrectly state he was fired.

I agree, he wasnt fired.

 

[sedna]

That's what I was saying. There are as many, if not more sites, that state the above there,...

The best thing to do when you're trying to piece together a current event, is try to get as much info as possible from all sources. That includes the biased on both sides and the somewhat neutral sites that clam to be unbiased. ( there's no such thing as unbiased, they just leave out propaganda so they appear as such, but its much clearer reporting )

Then you put it all together in a way that appeals to your own common sense.

I once got in an argument a long time ago with a guy who believed the 9/11 conspiracy theory. He wasnt some nut case, he was very intelligent. I thought he just liked winding people up and starting crap at cocktail parties, so one night I decided to go after him and shut him up.

The ' evidence' supporting his theory was really compelling and looked completely legitimate. The way he tied it all together and delivered the information verbally, was hard to totally throw out in the moment. He, his ' evidence' and his fantastic speaking style were a little seductive. I dont know what his deal was now, and dont care. It would've been smarter for him to be using that talent to sell us all non existent stocks.

I'm just pointing out that in the end, you really have to accept that you need to gather info from many sources, put it together, and keep open the possibility that even then, you may be misinformed. Most people just look at their favorite news site or TV show and take it as gospel....now that's whats scary.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Most people just look at their favorite news site or TV show and take it as gospel....now that's whats scary.

That's my dad and Fox News.

I, on the other hand, watch all 3, google and try to find the most realiable source I can, and still have not yet formed an opinion. I will then listen to people speak both sides, look at their sources, try to find more sources.

Its a very exhausting process i take but my brain says that theres your side, their side, and the truth is somewhere in the middle and im after that truth.

Its been much more diffcult then normal this election to find some form of the truth.

I was making a point about that. How just as many sites that say he was fired says he wasnt so its easier to not know the truth. Thats all.

 

[sedna]

That's my dad and Fox News.

I, on the other hand, watch all 3, google and try to find the mo...

I know, I was supporting your point LFS. I have an 85 year old uncle thats filthy rich, he spends all day watching Fox and gives the Republican party huge donations every year.

He has no friends and no relatives ever bother with him anymore. My cousin told me he's either in the yard telling the illegal Mexican landscaper his life story or following the maid from Honduras around, because he's lonely. I'm totally serious, he does work on his property he doesnt need so he has people to talk to, he genuinely enjoys these people's company. He's a very mean old man, if he didnt like them, they wouldnt be there. He doesnt get that what he's doing conflicts with his own hate spewing political views.

I think maybe he's a victim of propaganda, he doesnt question what he's told by Republican anybody. He grew up on the streets of Chicago in the depression and became a self made millionaire by 1960. All of the Fox spewing caters to people like that, and they're big donors. Its sad. ;(

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I think maybe he's a victim of propaganda, he doesnt question what he's told by Republican anybody. He grew up on the streets of Chicago in the depression and became a self made millionaire by 1960. All of the Fox spewing caters to people like that, and they're big donors. Its sad. ;(

I dont know about him but my dad is super closed minded, about everything.

Though, it is strange this year. My dad has always been Mr "you must vote and if you dont, you have no right to complain" and he's never told anyone how to vote.

This year, he says if you dont vote Trump dont vote at all, something about Clinton and his grandkids will have to live in "it", whatever "it" is. I could ask but then that starts a while new level of preaching Trump's gospel and I have no time for it.

He is just a very closed mind person. Ive never been that way. Im naturally curious and naturally suspect. So it sends me on a large quest for the truth.

My therapist brings this up often, as a good attibute or something. He compares us a lot.

Oh and my therapist is against Trump and when my dad heard that, he seems to think that makes him a bad therapist.

Sigh!

 

[Deleted member 12723]

I stand corrected about Dr Drew and I apologize.

I can pretty much figure out what news sources to go to and I have been learning so many things. I also watch both Clinton and Trumps speeces as well.

I try to avoid the extreme programs which are pretty bad, I do agree with this.

I do not trust mainstream left media at all.

By watching the actual speeches I see both sides represented.

There are fifteen emails that will be outed before the election. As for Hillarys health, that is well covered in social media as I have seen pictures of Clinton not being able to climb stairs and needed to be assisted. I have seen stools to support Clinton until Trump pointed this one out. The help for Clinton by making a special ambulance for her to stand on and be lifted up so that she does not fall is real. She does have a strange lesion in her tongue, she falls quite a bit.

There is also the shady dealing of the Clinton Foundation which are now being investigated.

She has tried to place blame on Colin Powell for her private servers in her basement which he has stood up for himself and clarified the real facts.

Yes I realize that everyone has a bias me included. I think the biggest thing that has helped me to decide is watching both sides speeches. Fair enough.

I have noticed that this is a ugly election but so much is at stake.

 

[sedna]

I respect your opinions @gizmo, and the fact that you give a lot of thought to things before forming complete opinions.

There's something I dont understand about Trump supporters, though. I'm asking a question here you dont have to answer, I'm not looking to start big thing over it. I think I may have actually asked you something like this a while ago. Its an honest question.

I wonder why his supporters dont see his own shady history, habit of maneuvering around laws for his own interests,and the fact that all of his financial dealings are either blatantly suspect, because they are public record, or suspicious because they aren't public record and should be.

He says outsourcing has ruined this country, and it's Democrats fault for getting rid of the manufacturing industry. It didn't occur to him to open a manufacturing plant to make his Trump products. That would have been two businesses in one.

Instead he used Mexico and China to produce for him, and bought Casino's he ran into the ground.

One thing I'm very aware of, having shuffled businesses globally to dodge taxes myself in years past, is that when you are heavily in debt to investors, it's an advantage to have a couple of investments that you know will tank. It's serves as a way to hide liquid assets, its a tax write off, and you always have a way to claim you aren't financially solvent, because your money has to keep the ' struggling ' business afloat for the investors. You run your money through the losers and right back into the good ones out the back door. Its a nice paper trail.

When a way to move your money upwards happens elsewhere, you dump the struggling business. Either by selling it at a loss or bankruptcy, both are tax write offs.

You wait a semi respectable amount of time, then you make your next business deal for an actual profit. When the numbers get too high, or the investors get pushy, you suddenly come up with a failing business somewhere else again.

When you look at the timing of his bankruptcies, they are always just before he builds or buys a much larger business enterprise.

He filed chap.11 for a casino in 2004..... He bought a golf course in Palos Verdes for 27mil in '02. In 2006 he said he was going to put 260 mil. into remodeling it, in 2008 he asked the IRS to asses it at 10 mil. Today, 10 yrs after he said he was going to remodel and make it a thriving business, it's tax assessment is 14. mil. About half what he paid for it 14 years ago.

That same pattern is there in his S. Florida Golf course, to keep this shorter I'll just say the purchase, and grandiose estimates in public statements, then its eventually estimated at a fraction of that years later. In Florida he actually kept lobbying the tax assessor to lower it to 10 mil. Just after he spent millions fixing it up.
Same in Charlotte, he bought it, spent a lot fixing it up, and lobbied the tax man to have it valued at half of what its value was before he did that.
This supports my theory of his motives quite a bit.

People bothered by his insistence on having his businesses valued at less and lobbying to have his taxes lowered, are focused solely on the fact he's not paying his fair taxes. Having X amount of years showing a 'yuge' loss on your IRS forms, enables you to file Chap. 11. He's keeping his options open.

I dont think there's any mystery over why or when he bought that Golf Course in Aberdeen. I have a theory of my own about why its in the UK.....and the timing of that. I'd do it if I were him. I did it when I had a lot less to hide hardly anybody cared where I hid it.

The UK is a great financial cover, very few people consider that you'd hide anything where the taxes are practically half your profit. It's also easier to create delays and fussy issues over the law agreements the States have with the UK. Countries that dont have that just give you a court order to hand it all over, or they're such obvious money hiders, just having a business there announces you're hiding something.

Trump has made himself an executive in his corporation, he is not solely responsible financially or legally for anything he says he " owns " and hasn't been since at least 2004. Thats a release of liability somewhat, but not totally.

The debates over whether he did or didnt manage the businesses well dont seem relevant to me. I think most of these are intentional escape routes for appearing solvent to creditors, until they run their course or the business debt becomes too high to keep it afloat. The exception is his first chap. 11, which I think really was the result of his mismanagement and hurt his personal wealth. I'm sure that's when he figured out how that game works and decided to use it.
The Plaza in '92 looks like his first big splash with that concept.

For anyone who says all of this is might show that he's really a very smart business man after all, I want to point out that what I have just described here,
is the framework of a basic Ponzi scheme.

The method of shuffling, grabbing, then dumping is only criminal for someone who's dumb enough to allow the possibility of all the money being juggled to crash to down all at once. As long as his tax lobbying is successful, what he's doing with the bankruptcies - and the workers in his businesses, is legal.

Unlike Hilary, it really isn't that hard to look closely at Trumps financial history, his education, his statements and promises etc.
He's not good at censoring himself, even now. If you go back and look at what he says and what the evidence shows, there are very big discrepancies.
The key is too look at financial publication archives, not politics or news. Also to make sure that you look at articles published well before any politics entered into it.

I took the time to write this comment mostly because I see something that I recognize like its been spray painted neon in his business deals and bankruptcies, but only see debates about taxes and his net worth. He has a pattern of handling his interests that is common among people who live beyond their means, or who are climbing corporate control ladders, thats what I see.

He isn't in either of these categories, that means it's character driven. It's making a splash, showing his power with Trump stamped stuff and grandiose public statements, then throwing it down like trash when he needs to move on - And he'll keep needing to move on, because when all the cards are counted in this game there's always a few missing.

 

[joeylittle]

As for Hillarys health, that is well covered in social media as I have seen pictures of Clinton not being able to climb stairs and needed to be assisted.

This is why you cannot pay attention to social media.

The Trump supporters who 'revealed' that photo pf Clinton on the stairs...couldn't even be bothered to do one quick google search. I'll just take Conservative Outfitters at random. Their headline:
New Hilary Clinton Photos Reveal She Needs Help Climbing Stairs
The first paragraph of the article:

Questions continue to swirl about Hillary Clinton's health as new photos reveal the candiate requires more help from staff than the public realized. Reuters and Getty have published multiple photos showing 68-year-old Clinton being held by staffers as she cautiously makes her way up a handful of small stairs on what appears to be the porch of a residence.

Link Removed

The photos were taken in February. Here's the caption from one of the photos, licensed by Getty:

NORTH CHARLESTON, SC - FEBRUARY 24: Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slips as she walks up the stairs into the non-profit SC Strong, a 2 year residential facility that helps former felons, substance abusers, and homeless move into self-sufficiency February 24, 2016 in North Charleston.

Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary... News Photo | Getty Images

Ever slip going up or down stairs? It's a thing that happens to humans, right?

The real 'news' here is that the Trump camp started a rumor mill, misrepresenting images that are months old as being 'new', and captioning that she 'cannot make it up the stairs'. You slip, you reach to steady yourself, things keep moving.

She has been given a clean bill of health by her doctor. She didn't need to disclose that at all, she did it willingly; though, I suspect with all the pressure around it, there'd have been no way to avoid it. She cleared a cancer screening. I'd be surprised to find out that she's the first candidate who has ever fallen, or had blood clots.

Here's a fairly decent article, simply reporting what is known about both Clinton and Trump and their health.

I'd really like to see the media swarm put more attention on the issues, and less on this surrounding noise that is nothing but muckraking.