A vast majority of the info they fact check involve statements about easily verifiable facts...
Printable View
A vast majority of the info they fact check involve statements about easily verifiable facts...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...1107133194.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Like saying Trump lied for saying that Hillary avid washed her email servers when she actually used a software called Bleach Bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Overly literal and pedantic is not the truth.
I think you underestimate the fear that Clinton might not win. It's not just the Trump craziness, it's also an irrational negativism about Clinton. Here we have a woman who actually has shown to be very competent who somehow also is perceived for no obvious reason as utterly unreliable. The scandals surrounding Clinton seem to stick for no other reason than that she's Hillary.
The most obvious reason for her reactions about the e-mail server was never even touched upon; she has had to go to through inspections of her personal life so intrusive for so long that it makes the Kardashians come of as reclusives. It's not so strange she had an urge to keep some parts of her life private. Maybe better choices could have been made but there was no damage done as far as we know an there certainly was no intent to break any rules.
It's quiet.
Almost too quiet.
I think Trump is gearing up to say something absolutely vile and/or monstrously irresponsible.
But whether they vote in high numbers (like Baby Boomers reliably do) is unknown, just like the article said. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
*sigh* I was commenting on how a megalomaniac like Trump became the GOP nominee -- with the tacit approval of the Republican party 'leadership' -- by appealing to a "base" of angry white working-class non-college educated males with a racist/nativist streak.Quote:
I really don't get the idea white males are a majority. Women already are a majority. White males already are only about 35% of the adult population I believe. Which is why Trump is doomed to inevitable and well justified defeat.
Well, at first he was dismissed as a clown, an outlier, no way would he win the primary election, right? So why not come up with some Party Promises, and go along with the show, right? Surely the *majority* of Republicans would see through his dog and pony show, and eventually nominate someone else, right? :rolleyes:
No it's not unknown it is known. They don't turnout at anything like the percentage that Baby Boomers reliably do, that is absolutely known.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
IMHO I thought Megan Kelly did a nice job sparring with Newt Gingrich, though, to be fair, I've never liked that asshole. Check it out:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499427..._campaign=news
Yeah, it's the woman who cares too much about sex, not a guy known for cheating on his wives before trading them in for newer models (like a certain person that he's defending).
Twitter Link
In other news, the Dilbert guy's really let himself go.
That reads like joke. Are you sure it's not super dry sarcasm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Scott Adams has form for douchebaggery, probably not a joke.
Could be either can't tell.
Read the rest of his twitter feed and you shall have your answer.
Spoiler:
I wonder if he was one of the people complaining about the deplorable label.
Lewk, here's a conservative telling you why all the media attention is on Trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pollster-...200157345.html
Rationale for supporting Trump in a nutshell (hint: there isn't any):
https://theringer.com/peter-thiel-do...abe#.4gsbsp4jv
And now the gloves are off: https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/st...63468447236096
You are wrong; there is a very strong rationale. It is that the system does not deliver for too many people while pretending to be inclusive. Trump voters don't want to change the system from within, they want to bring it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Minus the part where your average Trump supporter actually makes above average income.
The average person doesn't attribute his/her income to the system. Delivering also isn't only about money in your pocket. I make more than the average voter in The Netherlands, but some 10 years ago I was so disgusted with politics here, I voted for the only dead guy on the ballot.
That's impossible in the UK. It isn't possible for the dead to be on a ballot paper here.
I doubt that, unless your entire election is postponed if someone died between printing ballots and the election day.
In the US when someone drops out (including write ins who preemptively announce they don't want a position) or dies the ballots aren't changed. There are notices posted in every voting booth informing voters of the issue and that if you vote for the invalid option your vote will be ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Are you sure that's the case? I think that since the electors actually place the votes for POTUS, they can place their votes for whoever they wish when the actual electoral votes are tallied (substantially AFTER election day) - presumably they would be encouraged to vote for whoever the party's committee had chosen as a replacement for the dead nominee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Furthermore, I'm not sure a vote is 'ignored' even in direct elections (e.g. for a congressional seat) - I am not sure about this, but if someone dies before an election but their name is still on the ballot, the opposing party can still 'lose' the election to the dead candidate, although it just means that the seat goes into an immediate by-election afterwards, with a new candidate or candidates.
There was a lot of discussion a few weeks ago about how feasible it would be to replace Trump on the ticket, and most of the options went through the electoral college rather than the actual ballots seen by voters.
I was largely referring to the majority of the elected positions we vote for that don't have party affiliations or VPs. Florida is currently using one of these notices to inform voters that a favored write in has announced that he has no intention of fulfilling his position if elected so votes for him will not be counted. This is one reason I used the term invalid instead of something more direct since the positions/candidates you're referring to wouldn't technically be invalid. I do see my wording and explaination could have been more thoroughQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
That's precisely what happens. Don't forget our candidates stand in one constituency only and the entire election for that constituency is postponed and rescheduled with new ballot papers if any of the candidates die. Only happened seven times in history but most recently in 2010 when a UKIP candidate died in a safe Tory seat: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8115...andidate_dies/Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
If the monarch dies the entire General Election gets postponed for a fortnight.
Surely one of the most British sentences on record.Quote:
If the monarch dies the entire General Election gets postponed for a fortnight.
LOL! :haha:
Coincidentally that's the second time I've read that in the last few days. The other time was for the sentence "Cook sensibly batted for a maiden in the final over before tea" which I imagine would be very weird if not gibberish to most Americans.
In Holland voting for a dead person does actually have an effect on the outcome of the elections, but as it was a so-called protest vote, I could care less at the time. The reason for the effect is that your vote is both for the party and the person. If the person you vote is dead, your vote still goes towards the party.