Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Media, media, f*** media. Screwing reality 7/24. And then, of course, everything comes as a huge freaking surprise!

Crimea has...

+1

[jfirneno]

Did she say that, really?

What she really said is somewhat different (as can be expected from someone with a legal background), but that apparently eludes those who want to twist the facts in their favor over the backs of actual sexual assault victims. Disgusting.

But then that so called quote of yours is just to divert attention, so I'll leave it at that. Enough said.

Cheers,
Bart

She had it on her website until Trump had Bill's victims show up.  Then she scrubbed it.  (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-right-to-be-believed/ )

The list of Bill Clinton's accusers include women in the US and the UK and include Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Corbin, Sandra Allen James, Eileen Wellstone, Christy Zercher and others.

See link for more.  http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm

Hillary Clinton claims to be a feminist but apparently Bill gets a pass to do whatever he wants.  I think Trump is way out of his league when it comes to insensitivity to women's issues.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Slobodan,

Tough dilemma, what to believe, a tweet, or Hillary speaking the (different) words herself.
In logic, I think that phenomenon is called "Confirmation bias".

As I said, it's a diversion (from the topic of Trump's credibility and character), also a common debating technique.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi Slobodan,

Tough dilemma, what to believe, a tweet, or Hillary speaking the (different) words herself...

Different words? Those exact words were a part of her website, including videos with the words inscribed:

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I beg to differ on this one, Bart. That's by far not just "the USA for ya", it's everywhere.

Hi,

I agree, but I didn't say it was just or only in the USA.

However, there are some significant differences between the US government and most other (systems of) Governments. But that's something for another thread, some other time.

As for those who 'predicted'/warned about the disappearing of a "middle class", it's interesting to listen to Jaron Lanier explaining his vision on the matter. Oh, and don't let his looks deceive you, he wasn't named one of TIME's 100 most influential people in 2010 without reason. Here's a bit of background on him.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Different words? Those exact words were a part of her website, including videos with the words inscribed:

Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?

"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".

That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.

Besides, 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault. Clinton, with a legal background, would know that, and that's why she said what she said.

Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?

"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".

That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.

Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.

Cheers,
Bart

Oh, come on, Bart. You started this by asking "is that what she said?" It has been shown to you and anyone who wants to see that she said exactly that. It has been shown in a tweet, in her web site, and in her video. If you don't want to admit it, that is up to you.

As for diversion... the topic of this thread is "election" so both leading candidates are a fair game for examination of their behavior, character and stance, not just Trump.

[James Clark]

Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?

"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".

That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.

Besides, 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault. Clinton, with a legal background, would know that, and that's why she said what she said.

Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.

Cheers,
Bart

Being nonpolitical here for a moment - I think a spouse is generally going to give their partner the benefit of the doubt (especially publicly) in a similar situation, as we all want to believe in the best of and support those we love.  I'm willing give Hillary a pass on defending Bill's unproven behavior, just as I'm willing to give Melania a pass on her continued support of her husband.  (I'll also say that I've found the left's attacks on Melania to be hypocritical in many other ways, FWIW...)

Looks like y'all have been busy while I was away

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I think a spouse is generally going to give their partner the benefit of the doubt...

In other words, "any other man on the planet but my husband is presumed guilty until proven innocent - because, you know, why would women lie?"

Welcome back, btw

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Oh, come on, Bart. You started this by asking "is that what she said?"

Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said. I just pointed that out.

I know full well that my command of the English language leaves a lot to be desired, but the difference between speaking and tweeting is clear to me. Is it clear to you (especially when the tweet is not an accurate account of what was actually said)?

It's an important distinction in an age where many people tend to get their 'information' from the internet, without realizing the so-called bubble filtering effect (that people tend to get search results from the internet/Facebook/Google search, which hides alternative opinions/views based on one's prior searches/likes).

As for diversion... the topic of this thread is "election" so both leading candidates are a fair game for examination of their behavior, character and stance, not just Trump.

Sure, both are fair game, but not as a tactic to divert attention from painful observations about the president elect's character flaws. One can only hope that he gets the support of good people to compensate. Sarah Palin for internal affairs, anyone? Or was that only a rumor I read because of my internet search history?

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said...

I am not going to let you get away with that obvious misstatement of facts.

It was:

1) a tweet
2) a part of her platform on her web site and
3) it was deemed by her significant enough to transcribe it on her video separately

Repeating the visuals, in case you missed them.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said...

I am not going to let you get away with that obvious misstatement of facts.

It was:

1) a tweet

I'm at a loss for your reasoning, but apparently we agree.

2) a part of her platform on her web site and

Yes, I was the first to provide a link to the source of the actually spoken text. How is that a misrepresentation?

3) it was deemed by her significant enough to transcribe it on her video separately

Yes, it underlined the text she did speak. Where dit it say RAPE, as in the quote I responded to? Where did it say "if a woman claims to have been raped, she must be believed.", the so-called quote I responded to? Who is misrepresenting what was said?

Repeating the visuals, in case you missed them.

Why do you think I missed them? I linked to her website myself (FWIW, the first link I got when Googling), and I responded to your (in my view, but that's just me I guess) puzzling rebuttal.

Your response also seems like Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior, but maybe that's just my interpretation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What exactly ARE your disputing, Bart? That because one of the three sources was a tweet, the whole stance doesn't count?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What exactly ARE your disputing, Bart? That because one of the three sources was a tweet, the whole stance doesn't count?

I'm disputing that it (the claim that I responded to) is a so-called quote from a speech by Hillary Clinton that was what she actually said. It was, at best, a very poorly (and legally ill-worded) condensed (twitter) version of what was actually said. I also stated that, in my opinion, it was a diversion from mentioning the character flaws of the president-elect, Trump, and that "Confirmation Bias"  apparently takes the better of some of the posters in this thread.

I'm neither a Hillary supporter nor a Donald supporter. I just pointed out some flaws in IMHO logical/legal thinking. Flaws that are easily developed in a heated debate, or by those who seek to derail it.

Cheers,
Bart

[James Clark]

In other words, "any other man on the planet but my husband is presumed guilty until proven innocent - because, you know, why would women lie?"

Welcome back, btw

Thanks - just a quick trip up the road to Dallas. 

Anyway, yes, more or less.  I just don't think that sort of behavior (defending one's spouse despite evidence to the contrary) is unusual and I;m hesitant to blame any spouse for defending his/her family.

[Alan Klein]

Hopefully we won't have to hear about the Clintons any more.  Trump put them away as he did the Bushes. 

[pegelli]

Hopefully we won't have to hear about the Clintons any more.  Trump put them away as he did the Bushes.

Don't count on it Alan, watch the first interview with the president elect tonight. Some parts got pre-shown in Europe and from what I've seen he seems to have a lot of praise for Clinton and Obama. Go figure 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Don't count on it Alan, watch the first interview with the president elect tonight. Some parts got pre-shown in Europe and from what I've seen he seems to have a lot of praise for Clinton and Obama. Go figure 

One thing you'd have to give to them (Bill, Hillary and Trump): they are all highly skilled and successful in their chosen field, otherwise wouldn't be there. Hillary is a highly skilled politician, which, in this election, actually worked against her, but still.

[omegadeep]

One thing you'd have to give to them (Bill, Hillary and Trump): they are all highly skilled and successful in their chosen field, otherwise wouldn't be there. Hillary is a highly skilled politician, which, in this election, actually worked against her, but still.

Easy, duped naive voters who think the system will change. It will never change to any great degree and the status quo will be maintained within certain parameters. The system is flexible enough to allow some change, but generally once gravity takes hold individuals tend to fall into line and at least partly conform in the face of the system.   Trump is experiencing this right now for the first time in his life. 

[Zorki5]

Interesting piece in FT: Should investors ever trust pollsters after the Brexit vote?

Not every... err, institution got it Brixit's odds wrong:

Had the political classes probed a little further, they would have discovered that the number of punters betting on Leave far outweighed those betting on Remain. The bookies were protecting themselves, as they always do. And guess who ultimately profited out of the £120m gambled on the Referendum? The bookies.

Is any data (from the bookies) available for the US elections yet?