USA presidential elections 2016

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Mar 2016, 10:13

biffvernon wrote:MIssed this on Trump from a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k3B-tw ... PstKPOtsHA

Trump could be more obnoxious. With his experience, he wouldn't have to try too hard.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Mar 2016, 10:18

Whatever revolting truths about Trump that exist, and there exist many I am sure, this News-night film was pretty pathetic in the bleak music overlay and lingering shots on various objects designed to elicit emotional responses in the viewer. Furthermore that reporter is someone who I have watched a number of times over the years and has his own ego that is more than match for the subject of this film. The bottom line is that this film was designed to emotionally manipulate as much if not mare than intellectually inform and I do not like being manipulated.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 24 Mar 2016, 10:29

Little John wrote:Whatever revolting truths about Trump that exist, and there exist many I am sure, this News-night film was pretty pathetic in the bleak music overlay and lingering shots on various objects designed to elicit emotional responses in the viewer. Furthermore that reporter is someone who I have watched a number of times over the years and has his own ego that is more than match for the subject of this film. The bottom line is that this film was designed to emotionally manipulate as much if not mare than intellectually inform and I do not like being manipulated.

I caught this piece and thought exactly the same. However grubby Trump may be and probably is, I expected something better on what is the BBC's flagship news programme.

I'm sure I could go off and find something similar on Clinton etc....

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Mar 2016, 10:50

Little John wrote:Whatever revolting truths about Trump that exist, and there exist many I am sure, this News-night film was pretty pathetic in the bleak music overlay and lingering shots on various objects designed to elicit emotional responses in the viewer. Furthermore that reporter is someone who I have watched a number of times over the years and has his own ego that is more than match for the subject of this film. The bottom line is that this film was designed to emotionally manipulate as much if not mare than intellectually inform and I do not like being manipulated.

Yeah, I was wondering about the general presentation; I didn't see the point (which you have now correctly described) of the 'artistic' bits. The brief (and obnoxious) interview with DT was the bit I was referring to.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Mar 2016, 12:12

emordnilap wrote:John Pilger excels himself in this piece. He's like a good wine.

Yeah, it's a good piece... be interesting to look back in 20 years - if any of us are still around!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Mar 2016, 12:53

clv101 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:John Pilger excels himself in this piece. He's like a good wine.
Yeah, it's a good piece... be interesting to look back in 20 years - if any of us are still around!

Sadly, JP will most likely not be...who can replace him? He's a diamond.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 30 Mar 2016, 18:14

Widespread anti-Sanders, pro-Clinton electoral fraud now taking place:

http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-ele ... ing-chaos/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-wag ... 50670.html

Basically, it appears that the Democratic Party establishment thinks Sanders can win, and they are responding with wide-spread and blatant "voter suppression". This included Bill Clinton physically blocking off the entrance to voting places to prevent people voting:

Massachusetts: Bill Clinton gets “a little too close”

Hillary won Massachusetts by less than two percent. But it was far from a clean victory. On the day of the primary, Bill Clinton was accused of unethical (and very likely illegal) electioneering in the Boston area. According to reports, Bill “blocked off several polling entrances, preventing people from voting. In New Bedford, a Reddit user posted a video depicting the former president speaking from a megaphone. Voters were roped off and could not enter their polling places.”

Shocking stuff. It appears Sanders is "not going to be allowed to win", regardless of how many votes he gets.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 30 Mar 2016, 19:19

In a similar vein:

Charles Hugh-Smith: Why the Corporate Media Hates Sanders (and has a Love/Hate Thing with Trump

Charles Hugh Smith wrote:A media professional clued me into why the Corporate Media hates Bernie and will move Heaven and Earth to defeat him: Sanders is the only candidate who is seriously promoting campaign finance reform.

When a Super-PAC raises $100 million for Hillary, Jeb, et al., where does 90% of that money go? To the Corporate Media. Corporate Media gorges on political media buys every two years, and increasingly depends on this feasting on Super-PAC money for its outsized profits.

As more and more advertising dollars flow to digital media (online search, Facebook, etc.), traditional media dominated by a handful of corporate giants needs the massive influx of campaign dollars to offset its stagnating revenue model.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 31 Mar 2016, 18:07

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... terrorism/

In a wide-ranging essay published Wednesday in The Hollywood Reporter, leftwing HBO host Bill Maher writes that Democrats could lose the upcoming general election over the party’s refusal to utter the words “Islamic terrorism.”

Speaking of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s proposed pause on Islamic immigration, the Real Time host writes, “I absolutely don’t believe that we should ban all Muslims coming into this country… But let’s not kid ourselves: A certain percentage of them will be radicalized. The more Muslims in your country, the more that is a possibility.”

So no, Donald Trump is not right —but he will win the election if the American people have to choose between his demagoguery and a party that won’t even say the words ‘Islamic terrorism.’ I think the Democrats could lose on that issue alone, especially if there’s another attack.

Bill Maher is a liberal chat show host with hawkish views on Islamic terrorism. And no, he doesn't support Trump.

However, he does think that with national security being a top issue for American voters and IS plotting terror attacks, the refusal of Democrats to call it 'Islamic' is going to lose them the election.

I happen to agree with him. The majority of voters are more concerned about keeping safe than worrying about the sensitivities of religious minorities. If Clinton, who refuses to call IS terrorism Islamic, goes down the route of attacking Trump as fear-mongering, than I have a strong feeling that it won't work.

Why? Because the majority of voters are really scared of random acts of jihadi terrorism and want to be reassured that 1) their leaders get the threat and 2) they have a plan to deal with it.

As Maher states, if you refuse to even call it Islamic, what kind of confidence does that give the average joe that you have a plan to combat it. Ultimately, the election could go down to how the presidential nominees react to a jihadi attack, either in the US or in Europe, and if it is felt that Trump is more effective than Clinton, you may see a big swing towards him.

Post by **clv101** » 31 Mar 2016, 22:08

Lord Beria3 wrote:The majority of voters are more concerned about keeping safe than worrying about the sensitivities of religious minorities.

The the majority of Americans really cared about keeping safe they'd pretty much ignore jihadi terrorism... I bet bees kill more Americans and I know toddlers with guns do.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2016, 22:38

I saw somewhere on the Internet (so it must be true) that furniture killed 17 times as many American people as terrorists.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 31 Mar 2016, 23:14

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Apr 2016, 02:49

So, apart from 9/11 which was horrendous, terrorism and specifically Islamic terrorism, come pretty low on the list. Adding 9/11 into the total since 9/11 and the total deaths from Islamic terrorism in the US is still pretty low. Compare the deaths in Europe to death by cop in the US and the numbers of terrorist murders are still pretty low.

Most Europeans will just get on with their lives as they normally do. I certainly won't curtail my, admittedly infrequent, trips to London using public transport. There's more chance of me being killed on the road shopping in my local town than there is being blown up or shot by a terrorist in London.

I suppose the worry is in what you consider to be controllable. In the US you can't do anything about the great danger of being shot because the gun lobby is so strong. Instead you make sure that the infinitesimally small chance of being killed by an Islamic terrorist doesn't get infinitesimally larger!

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 01 Apr 2016, 05:41

kenneal - lagger wrote:So, apart from 9/11 which was horrendous, terrorism and specifically Islamic terrorism, come pretty low on the list. Adding 9/11 into the total since 9/11 and the total deaths from Islamic terrorism in the US is still pretty low. Compare the deaths in Europe to death by cop in the US and the numbers of terrorist murders are still pretty low.

Most Europeans will just get on with their lives as they normally do. I certainly won't curtail my, admittedly infrequent, trips to London using public transport. There's more chance of me being killed on the road shopping in my local town than there is being blown up or shot by a terrorist in London.

I suppose the worry is in what you consider to be controllable. In the US you can't do anything about the great danger of being shot because the gun lobby is so strong. Instead you make sure that the infinitesimally small chance of being killed by an Islamic terrorist doesn't get infinitesimally larger!

You are missing the point that unless you are an ex con black man dealing drugs in the inner city your chances of getting shot in the USA are extremely low.
The terrorists will not kill us all or even a significant part of us. What they will do is bankrupt us paying for the police details and transport shutdowns that go with every terror attack.
The Boston marathon bombing alone cost tax payers 333 million dollars.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Apr 2016, 08:36

kenneal - lagger wrote: Most Europeans will just get on with their lives as they normally do. I certainly won't curtail my, admittedly infrequent, trips to London using public transport. There's more chance of me being killed on the road shopping in my local town than there is being blown up or shot by a terrorist in London.

Last time I was in London, walking round Westminster doing a bit of sight seeing, I was pretty put off by being stared at by policeman carrying machine guns. Really rather unpleasant when one is just trying to study architecture. I'll give the area a miss next time I'm in town.