freeman3 wrote:The slate:

DF--Brad
Danivon--Freeman
RJ--Sass
Ricky--Dags
George--Tom

Who would win?

freeman3 wrote:Might as well write-in people from Redscape. It would have the same impact...I think an RJ-Sass ticket might win here...maybe we should hold our own presidential election.

The slate:

DF--Brad
Danivon--Freeman
RJ--Sass
Ricky--Dags
George--Tom

Who would win?

freeman3 wrote:Here is politifacts analysis of the truthfulness of presidential candidates in this election and recent ones.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... lections-/

Interstingly enough, Hillary Clinyon has had the highest percentage of true or mostly true statements that politifacts has looked at in the last 8 years with regard to presidential candidates.

georgeatkins wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No one can possibly convince me either Trump or Clinton are decent human beings. This country is going to suffer no matter who wins. That said, I'm at about 98% that Hillary wins--unless she drops out or is arrested.

It is unfortunate. And had the Republicans promoted ANYBODY but Trump, it would have probably been a slam-bang victory. But Trump only cares to cater to his own sycophants, it seems; completely uninterested in swaying anybody else. Well, with his massive ego, he probably believes that if he keeps blustering and cajoling enough, he'll win more votes. I think the SNL skit of his campaign manager having to spend all of her time trying to spin the latest Trump pronouncement which then concludes with a cutaway to Clinton grooving with a bunch of Bernie supporters is a pretty good assessment.

bbauska wrote:The reason I asked about other tickets was to find if there are any people that are respected on the other side of the aisle. This is the issue of the current political world. I think there are people that I respect, although I don't agree with them.

Without respect, the debates just devolve into a slime pit. E.G. the current election.

Sorry, but politifact is not unbiased.

What's amazing is that through the release of the hacked emails, we're seeing what HRC really thinks. It's not even close to what she says.

But the speeches offer no dramatic differences between what Clinton said publicly, as Sanders and other liberal Democrats suggested they might during the Democratic primary.
Clinton has a reputation of being careful and guarded, at times calculating, and the emails show a campaign that runs that way.

rickyp wrote:fate

Sorry, but politifact is not unbiased.

Facts have a liberal bias.

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

rickyp wrote:fate

What's amazing is that through the release of the hacked emails, we're seeing what HRC really thinks. It's not even close to what she says.

Whats your source for this Fate?

I assume, like me, you haven't personnally gone through them all and compared them with her public positions...
Like me you must have depended upon journalists who get paid and have the time and expertise to do so ...
Here's one of my sources summation:

But the speeches offer no dramatic differences between what Clinton said publicly, as Sanders and other liberal Democrats suggested they might during the Democratic primary.
Clinton has a reputation of being careful and guarded, at times calculating, and the emails show a campaign that runs that way.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/ ... index.html

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

In August 2015, her aides debated how Mrs. Clinton should reveal her long-awaited position on an issue of major concern to the Democratic electorate: the Keystone XL oil pipeline. She had chosen to oppose it, potentially undermining President Obama.

Dan Schwerin, Mrs. Clinton’s speechwriter, wrote to her longtime adviser Cheryl D. Mills, “We are trying to find a good way to leak her opposition to the pipeline without her having to actually say it.” A month later, Brian Fallon, a press aide, suggested leaking her position to the news media by mentioning it during a meeting with labor leaders, rather than with an op-ed article.

“Do we worry that publishing an op-ed that leans this aggressively into our newfound position on Keystone will be greeted cynically and perhaps as part of some manufactured attempt to project sincerity?” Mr. Fallon wrote. The best way to appear consistent, he concluded, was “if her position merely leaked out of the labor meeting.”

In another exchange, in the fall of 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s speechwriter circulated a draft of an op-ed about her plan to reform Wall Street. Her senior advisers agonized over whether she should address calls to reinstate Glass-Steagall, the post-Depression rules separating commercial and investment banking.

One aide, Mandy Grunwald, said that Mrs. Clinton was leaning toward endorsing a return to Glass-Steagall, and that not doing so risked antagonizing Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who had campaigned to reinstate the rule. The campaign feared that Ms. Warren might back Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for president.

“I understand that we face phoniness charges if we ‘change’ our position now — but we face political risks this way too,” Ms. Grunwald wrote. “I worry about Elizabeth deciding to endorse Bernie.”

Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not support Ms. Warren’s proposal, arguing that other policies would better regulate Wall Street risk. Mr. Sanders criticized Mrs. Clinton on the issue throughout the campaign. (Ms. Warren stayed out of the primary battle until June, when Mrs. Clinton had all but secured the nomination.)

The Clinton campaign had plenty of its own ammunition ready to deploy against Mr. Sanders, the emails show. Ms. Grunwald wrote that she had been digging through opposition research and had “a couple new possible negatives to suggest we test in the poll, since most of our attacks haven’t been working.”

In another lengthy exchange, aides debated various ways to repair the damage with gay rights activists angry over Mrs. Clinton’s long-stated — and dubious — assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by her husband in 1996, was necessary to defuse political momentum toward a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

There was little evidence for her claim, the aides agreed, and gay rights advocates were frustrated that she continued to insist on it. Some aides suggested emphasizing her “evolution” on the issue. Another aide recommended a statement in which Mrs. Clinton would admit she was wrong. But Mr. Schwerin said Mrs. Clinton would resist.

“I think everyone agrees we shouldn’t restate her argument,” he wrote. “Question is whether she’s going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.”

A few days later, at a presidential forum, Mrs. Clinton revised her explanation but fell short of admitting a mistake. “Thinking back on it, those were private conversations that people did have” about a potential constitutional amendment, she said. She added, “If I’m wrong about the public debate, I obviously take responsibility for that.”

freeman3 wrote:I am going to be the guy that fact-checks the guy that fact-checks the fact-checkers. The columnist claims that Politifacts finds Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times more than Republicans. First, I'm not sure what that means given Politifacts' rating system. But buried below that--I'm sure a lot of readers would not pick it up--it is revealed that the professor cherry-picked a period of time from January-May, 2013. It is not even made clear that those were all statements fact-checked by Politifacts during that period of time. Putting that aside why would it be so hard to look at Politifacts' ratings over a longer period, say since Obama took office? Also, there is no examination of the facts themselves to see if the ratings were in fact incorrect. What kind of "study" is that. If he is going to cherry-pick 100 statements the least the professor could do is examine all 100 statements and examine how many he believes are in error. That is the laziest professor I have heard of, just looking at Politifacts ratings over a period of time. Do some work, man!

Anyway, Republicans have to lie more, it kind of comes with the territory.

And, of course, this whole charade is temporary. It’s designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon within the next 15 years. What happens after that is anyone’s guess — but even if the JCPOA does what it’s supposed to, it’s not exactly difficult to predict what will happen when its terms expire. Even President Obama has admitted that, at the end of “year 13, 14, 15,” the time needed to enrich enough uranium for one nuclear weapon would shrink from 2 to 3 months “almost down to zero.”

So Hillary Clinton hasn’t “eliminated” a darn thing. At best, she’s delayed it. Far more likely, though, given Obama’s numerous derelictions of duty and Iran’s knowledge that it has the whip-hand in this arrangement, is that she has helped to reinvigorate a regime that was growing weak — as the 2009 Green Movement in Iran suggested. (Clinton and Obama, breathless about the the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, were largely unresponsive when tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election victory.) At a time when sanctions had put a decisive strain on Iran’s economy, the Obama administration offered Tehran a lifeline by relaxing sanctions, thawing out long-frozen Iranian assets, and facilitating Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. And it compounded a material victory with a psychological one, offering a $400 million ransom for the safe return of American hostages — whose release should have been an upfront sine qua non of any nuclear agreement. Will it be a surprise to anyone when the Swiss francs that the CIA flew into Tehran in crates in January end up purchasing arms for Hezbollah? Meanwhile, Tim Kaine speaks about the threat from Iran as a thing of the past, the latest obsolescence thrown onto the ash-heap of history; Iran’s nuclear program has been “eliminated,” decisively, like the Soviet Union or the Nazi war machine.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ar-program