Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-19-2016, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,714,364 times
Reputation: 1667

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Either Comey is a liar or Clinton is a liar.

The FBI says they looked at all the evidence and Clinton is a liar that broke the law.
It seems to me that Comey's findings and recommendations were correct. The basic idea is "negligent but not criminal." From what I can tell, Clinton violated State Dept policies, but she did not knowingly break the law, nor did she purposefully lie to cover things up. (Although, like any public figure, I suspect she did her best to "spin" things in her favor.) She made mistakes, but she has admitted to making these mistakes. Of particular interest to me is her claim about classified information:

Clinton claimed that none of the messages were marked classified at the time, but Comey said:

"There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents,” Comey said. (The State Department on Wednesday said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.)

But I can easily imagine skimming over emails (or, perhaps, not even bothering to read them) and not noticing the the "c", given that the documents were not properly stamped:

Asked about the three documents with the “c” markings suggesting that the lines included classified information, Comey told Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) that they were not properly marked in accordance with the State manual.
“According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?” Cartwright asked, to which Comey responded in the affirmative.
Asked whether there was a header that contained the “c” in the text, Comey said the “c” denoting classified material “was in the body in the text but there was no header on the email or in the text.”
“So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified,” Cartwright remarked. “Am I correct in that?”
Comey called it a “reasonable inference.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...n-email-225224

All things considered, it seems to be just political mud-slinging now. Obviously Republicans will want to keep the issue alive; that's just good political strategy. Obviously Clinton should have known better, and should not have gotten herself into this mess in the first place, but I see no good basis for thinking that she is fundamentally dishonest or corrupt. At worst, I think she is no more dishonest or corrupt than any other politician, from either party, who has ever won their party's nomination for president. At worst, she represents "more of the same" insofar as carrying-on some relatively middle-of-the-road American politics. But I don't expect a worst-case scenario with her. Plain fact: She will be the first female president, and I think she will work extremely hard to show that women can do this job as well as, or better than, men. Anyone who hates liberal policies will hate her - that's just a given in politics - but she is not going to be a "bad" president. If anything, I think she will go extra miles to keep herself above corruption. I don't think we can realistically ask for more, under the current circumstances.

Although I'm basically independent, I generally lean more left than right, and what I see as a worst-case scenario with Clinton (a continuation of more of the same middle-road politics as usual) would be better than anything I saw with any of the major Republican contenders, and light-years better than Trump. As I see it, the Republican political platform is an outright nightmare.

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 07-19-2016 at 08:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2016, 09:53 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,500,810 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
I agree. I see 3 third parties that I expect will do better than ever before: the Greens, the Constitution party, and the Libertarians.

Since the Libertarians have been around the longest and is the best known of them, I fully expect it to do a lot better than at in any earlier election. Johnson, in my honest regard, is the best candidate of them all for the job, even if I'm not nuts about his party.

I voted 3rd party several times in the 70s and 80s, and after my last time, swore I never would again. Although I'm as solid a Democrat as it gets after I abandoned the Republican party for good in 1980, and I'm positive that Clinton will win, I may well vote for Johnson.

Since he will have no built-in Congressional support whatsoever, he's like Trump, who will have none either, but unlike Trump, Johnson is pragmatic and he has no need for continual huge self display. I can trust him not to carry around an A-bomb in his pocket or add fuel to all the civil fires that are burning so hotly now.

Another advantage for Johnson is, since he has no one who will follow him out of party loyalty alone, his Presidency would allow members of both parties to go along with him when they agree, with possibly much less ire getting aimed at them. He may be the one who allows more of Congress to vote their conscience, and in some cases, voter for their constituent's wishes when those wishes go against party lines.

He would possibly allow members of Congress to say one thing and do another with fewer personal repercussions. At the same time, if he was to garner some steady Congressional support, those Congressmen could have a stronger chance of re-election as Libertarians next time around.

There has been a lot of argument about building a 3rd party best from the bottom up or from the top down for decades.
I've come to believe that for a 3rd party to become so successful as to replace one of the 2 majors, both have to happen at the same time. And our system does not allow the presence of 3 or more major parties.

Whenever a new party arises in full strength, an older established party always has faded away very shortly. The Republican party is the best example of that fact. It's rise was sudden, and all it took was enough base supporters and the right guy for the job at hand to do in the Whigs forever.

It was a radical political shift. Maybe this is the year for another. I may have to break my vow.
I share the sentiments, but I too swore I never would again...

Not sure what causes people to think there is anyone receiving these protest and/or alternative "messages," but I just don't see any evidence that voting that way is any better than not voting at all.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/elect...dont-vote.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2016, 10:03 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,500,810 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"The credibility of Dailykos is completely irrelevant"

You are being blinded by your own bias.

It IS relevant BECAUSE KOS CHOSE to post it.

Do you REALLY think Kos would have NOT have posted it if they did NOT agree with it?

Try to find a positive posts by Kos towards repubs.

You claim you know noTHING about Kos yet, you want to defend them.

The Guardian is ANOTHER hyper liberal media outlet.

I think you are B.S.ing us.
My opinion, what is B.S. is the inability to consider facts because of the source rather than given the source, especially since we all know the best way to test our own knowledge and substantiation about our own opinions is to test them by way of those who don't agree with us, NOT those who do.

Also, since it is very difficult to read news and opinion from a source without some level of bias, most important is the ability to recognize truth or to verify it one way or another regardless where it comes from. IOW's we must all separate the truth from the B.S. pretty much no matter the source, but not to consider a report at all because of the source? That's confirmation bias at its worst. An epidemic in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2016, 10:12 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,500,810 times
Reputation: 3415
I read many -- most -- of these comments, especially about Hillary the pathological liar, etc., etc., and I'm reminded of all such partisan hyperbole and nonsense lodged against Obama, of course the black Muslim foreign-born communist out to ruin America. I wasn't involved in this forum when Obama ran either time, but I'll bet the criticisms of Hillary are no less partisan and unsubstantiated, regardless what the FBI decides, regardless her resume, regardless the facts, as usual...

More generally speaking, as to whether America is "headed in the right direction," and/or whether the Obama/Hillary direction is better or worse than Trump's, I think the question should begin with where we were and where we are today as compared to the rest of the world. Wish I could elaborate, but I've got to sign off right now.

Maybe later...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,714,364 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
My opinion, what is B.S. is the inability to consider facts because of the source rather than given the source, especially since we all know the best way to test our own knowledge and substantiation about our own opinions is to test them by way of those who don't agree with us, NOT those who do.
Exactly. But I've come to realize that a lot of people here will not understand what you just said. A source - any source whatsoever, no matter how seemingly respectable on the one hand, or how blatantly biased, on the other - is just a delivery system for claims that might or might not be factual. Most of us are reading pop-culture sources - internet websites on which, for the most part, anyone can say anything without any concern for rationality or evidence. These memes are then picked up and spread instantaneously. It takes days or weeks for people to check facts and/or test the logic of what has been said, but since the initial impact was instantaneous, the damage done by misinformation is already done, and people have acquired emotional commitments to the sentiments that were expressed. This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. People continue to defend X because they initially felt positive emotions about X and are more or less on-record defending it, so to preserve their self image and their reputation, they are highly resistant to admitting an initial error.

My hope for this thread (albeit an ever-so-faint glimmer of hope) was that there could be at least this one thread committed to digging into the sources of the sources of the sources of various memes so that we could eventually evaluate something close to the original sources. The link in my OP was to a blatantly unreliable source. I knew that, but as I tried to explain upfront, this source is irrelevant because all this source did was quote another source, namely, a FaceBook poster. This FB poster cannot be taken as a reliable source either, but here is the big difference: The FB poster defended his claims with logical arguments and references to deeper sources, that, in turn, offered logical arguments and deeper sources. At this point we had the specific names of specific people and organizations who had done primary research on the subject. These deep sources are not "God" either - we can still question their logic and methods - but now we at least have some sources that we can sink our teeth into. From what I can tell so far, the most substantial negative memes about Hillary can be traced back to blatantly political propaganda, rather than to any clear or specific publicly available evidence.

By comparison: The meme about Trump being corrupt fairly quickly tracks back to specific sources (e.g., a biographer's research, etc.), and facts that can be found on public records. What I would like to see is both sides put forth their best arguments and reference their best/deepest sources. None of this is any guarantee of truth, but I think is it still worth something to know the best arguments and sources for any given claim, or any particular meme that is floating around in the cybersphere.

I've given two examples of articles that track back to deeper/better sources and arguments. My hope is that others can do something similar to support their own perspectives for or against each candidate. Surely our collective brainpower can do better than thoughtlessly slinging muddy memes that tend to bury truth rather than reveal it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 09:35 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,500,810 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Exactly. But I've come to realize that a lot of people here will not understand what you just said. A source - any source whatsoever, no matter how seemingly respectable on the one hand, or how blatantly biased, on the other - is just a delivery system for claims that might or might not be factual. Most of us are reading pop-culture sources - internet websites on which, for the most part, anyone can say anything without any concern for rationality or evidence. These memes are then picked up and spread instantaneously. It takes days or weeks for people to check facts and/or test the logic of what has been said, but since the initial impact was instantaneous, the damage done by misinformation is already done, and people have acquired emotional commitments to the sentiments that were expressed. This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. People continue to defend X because they initially felt positive emotions about X and are more or less on-record defending it, so to preserve their self image and their reputation, they are highly resistant to admitting an initial error.

My hope for this thread (albeit an ever-so-faint glimmer of hope) was that there could be at least this one thread committed to digging into the sources of the sources of the sources of various memes so that we could eventually evaluate something close to the original sources. The link in my OP was to a blatantly unreliable source. I knew that, but as I tried to explain upfront, this source is irrelevant because all this source did was quote another source, namely, a FaceBook poster. This FB poster cannot be taken as a reliable source either, but here is the big difference: The FB poster defended his claims with logical arguments and references to deeper sources, that, in turn, offered logical arguments and deeper sources. At this point we had the specific names of specific people and organizations who had done primary research on the subject. These deep sources are not "God" either - we can still question their logic and methods - but now we at least have some sources that we can sink our teeth into. From what I can tell so far, the most substantial negative memes about Hillary can be traced back to blatantly political propaganda, rather than to any clear or specific publicly available evidence.

By comparison: The meme about Trump being corrupt fairly quickly tracks back to specific sources (e.g., a biographer's research, etc.), and facts that can be found on public records. What I would like to see is both sides put forth their best arguments and reference their best/deepest sources. None of this is any guarantee of truth, but I think is it still worth something to know the best arguments and sources for any given claim, or any particular meme that is floating around in the cybersphere.

I've given two examples of articles that track back to deeper/better sources and arguments. My hope is that others can do something similar to support their own perspectives for or against each candidate. Surely our collective brainpower can do better than thoughtlessly slinging muddy memes that tend to bury truth rather than reveal it.
Agreed, though I should add that I do try to avoid sources of obvious bias, opinion pieces, "talking heads" and all the rest who are obviously catering to a certain audience and/or with obvious agenda toward one side or another. So, for the most part I simply follow the news for the facts as to what is actually happening, including what politicians actually say or do, ignoring most of the rest of the usual partisan nonsense. I follow about 10 different news sites every morning, local, national and international (mostly national and international).

As mentioned before, I call it "triangulating for the truth."

Also as mentioned before, if anyone wants a good solid hour of quality reporting about what is happening around us, I recommend the PBS Newshour, because they are very good at getting the experts in their field on the show to offer various expert opinions about the major issues. For example, they may have someone from the Cato Institute (generally known to be conservative) sitting at a table with one or two other experts who offer counter opinion, leaving the viewer to decide what sounds right all considered. The extra bonus to that one hour of news coverage, again national and international, is no commercials!

As for the exchange of opinion in these forums and what to expect, I am forever asking "why bother" primarily because of what I call my Cement Theory.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...nt-theory.html

I suppose I just have an ongoing curiosity about what people think and why, sometimes even reading a comment or two that makes some sense, maybe even educational. Usually just unsubstantiated bluster, however, as most the comments in this thread well demonstrate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,714,364 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
As for the exchange of opinion in these forums and what to expect, I am forever asking "why bother" primarily because of what I call my Cement Theory.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...nt-theory.html
I agree, to some extent, with your cement theory, although I do think that a gradual evolution of views occurs over time. I'd say that, for measurement purposes, the best unit of measure is roughly a decade. If you compare one decade of someone's life to another decade, you will often see significant - sometimes even fundamental - changes. Some of the most drugged-up hippies of the 60s and 70s are now the most hard-core conservatives walking the earth today. I went through stages from Christian to libertarian to fairly radical left-wing atheist to moderate liberal agnostic over the decades. I basically never have epiphanies that suddenly change everything overnight. Rather, I have epiphanies that make me think twice and eventually combine with other epiphanies. In my early 20s I was convinced that progressive taxation was plain and simple theft - really, even, "theft at gunpoint" - until I finally did some deep and serious reading of the more liberal views and came to understand the moral philosophies underlying the concepts of wealth re-distribution. It was somewhere in my 30s that I developed my fascination - perhaps obsession - with digging up and confronting the best of the best arguments and evidence for philosophical and scientific positions. I don't expect anyone to change their minds about much of anything important during the course of a debate, but seeds get planted and can eventually blossom into new ways of thinking.

Personally, I love coming to understand a perspective that I didn't understand before. Understanding may or may not lead to agreement, but new comprehensions are, in themselves, of great value to me. Right now I don't understand why any rational person would be enthusiastic about Trump. I can somewhat understand conservative Hillary-haters siding with Trump as a lesser of evils (I can see traditional political mud-slinging and party loyalty playing major roles), but why would anyone - especially an independent or a liberal - actually like Trump? That is a mystery that I am hoping someone here can help me untangle.

Bottom line: I love the feeling when "WTF?" becomes "ah-ha!"

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 07-20-2016 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 11:27 AM
 
8,290 posts, read 3,860,660 times
Reputation: 10601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Personally, I love coming to understand a perspective that I didn't understand before. Understanding may or may not lead to agreement, but new comprehensions are, in themselves, of great value to me. Right now I don't understand why any rational person would be enthusiastic about Trump. I can somewhat understand conservative Hillary-haters siding with Trump as a lesser of evils (I can see traditional political mud-slinging and party loyalty playing major roles), but why would anyone - especially an independent or a liberal - actually like Trump? That is a mystery that I am hoping someone here can help me untangle.

Bottom line: I love the feeling when "WTF?" becomes "ah-ha!"
I tend to think like you do - but you surely realize that the majority of posters on City-Data or similar forums don't come here to investigate or to "understand" anything. Primarily it's a way of soap-boxing their strongly held and likely unchangeable opinion about something. It is about emotions, not facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 09:01 PM
 
1,692 posts, read 1,950,228 times
Reputation: 1190
Don't care for either of them but I trust Hillary to govern competently if not spectacularly. I have no idea what Trump would do, and that's terrifying. It stuns me that so many people would put faith in a candidate who knows so little and doesn't care to learn. You can't govern by "gut feeling." Jesus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2016, 09:52 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,500,810 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I agree, to some extent, with your cement theory, although I do think that a gradual evolution of views occurs over time. I'd say that, for measurement purposes, the best unit of measure is roughly a decade. If you compare one decade of someone's life to another decade, you will often see significant - sometimes even fundamental - changes. Some of the most drugged-up hippies of the 60s and 70s are now the most hard-core conservatives walking the earth today.

I don't know if you read much in that Cement Theory thread, but much of these sorts of comments are addressed. My theory is not that people hold EXACTLY the same views they did when they were in their twenties. Just because someone was a "drugged-up" hippy back in the day does not establish what their core political or spiritual beliefs where back in the day...


What I have found to be true in the great majority of cases is that whatever true CORE belief someone had when they were into their later twenties, in particular whether they tended to lean more liberal or conservative, more religious or not, those core tendencies, inclinations, beliefs continue essentially the same as they move onto their thirties and as they get older after that. Ultimately rendering the exchange of facts, opinion and reason pointless if the point is to alter someone's core beliefs in these regards.


This is NOT to say there are not "exceptions to the rule." However, people generally don't change their core fundamental beliefs as a rule. Someone deeply religions and/or faithful in their twenties, very rarely becomes agnostic or atheist later in life. Someone with very strong feelings about liberal and/or conservative philosophy does NOT typically go to the other side as they get older. At best, we may become more moderate toward or fundamental beliefs, but our inclinations, our leanings don't change all that much.


Also as commented and evidenced in this thread, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever changed their mind or opinion in these regards that I have seen, no matter the facts, reason or logic to alternatively consider. Why is that? The reason is because we tend to decide where we stand at a relatively young age when we are most impressionable about such things, and then we slowly "cement" those beliefs and feelings as we get older through a long process of confirmation bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top