POTUS 2016, part 3

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked

Who would you like to see winning the presidency of the U.S.?

Hillary Clinton - (Dem.)
38
47%
Donald Trump - Mike Pence (Rep.)
21
26%
Gary Johnson - Bill Weld (Libertarian)
8
10%
Jill Stein (Green)
14
17%
 
Total votes: 81

Exactly
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:40 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Exactly » Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:39 am

Sure, and who decides what a nationalist twitter account is ? Since that claim is coming from a super anti trump newspaper you can be sure anything not pro-clinton is considered while supremacy by them. I see no methodology presented in the article, just a phony claim.

User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by rowboat » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:08 am

Exactly wrote:Sure, and who decides what a nationalist twitter account is ? Since that claim is coming from a super anti trump newspaper you can be sure anything not pro-clinton is considered while supremacy by them. I see no methodology presented in the article, just a phony claim.
:console:

Demographics Pro is a leading provider of actionable insight into social audiences, delivering demographics
and psychographics by dashboard and API to analyze, influence and target consumers on the social web.
Top agencies, analytics providers and brands relying on the company’s demographics include Edelman,
Ogilvy, Mindshare, Rentrak, CAA, Disney, Skype, HP, Starbucks, Red Bull, GoPro and Airbnb.

Trump supporters were qualified as a sample of 10,000 US citizens, each following Trump on Twitter AND
tweeting at least one pro-Trump hashtag (see Appendix A2) during a 7-day period prior to the third
presidential debate. Clinton supporters were similarly qualified. A selection of 10 white nationalist Twitter
accounts (see Appendix A1) were qualified as being affiliated with one or more Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC) designated hate groups AND tweeting content indicating a white nationalist viewpoint.
Appendix A1: White Nationalist Twitter accounts
A selection of 10 white nationalist Twitter accounts were qualified as being affiliated with one or more
SPLC designated hate groups AND actively tweeting content indicating a white nationalist viewpoint:
The Ten White Nationalist Twitter accounts:

@DrDavidDuke
@Keksek_org
@marylovefreedom
@_AltRight_
@RichardBSpencer
@Cernovich
@ramzpaul
@WhitesRabbit_
@Suthen_boy
@LadyAodh
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3355
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:09 am

Exactly wrote:Sure, and who decides what a nationalist twitter account is ?
Twitter accounts were qualified as being affiliated with one or more SPLC designated hate groups AND actively tweeting content indicating a white nationalist viewpoint:
Exactly wrote: I see no methodology presented in the article, just a phony claim.
Methodology
Trump supporters were qualified as a sample of 10,000 US citizens, each following Trump on Twitter AND tweeting at least one pro-Trump hashtag (see Appendix A2) during a 7-day period prior to the third presidential debate. Clinton supporters were similarly qualified. A selection of 10 white nationalist Twitter accounts (see Appendix A1) were qualified as being affiliated with one or more Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated hate groups AND tweeting content indicating a white nationalist viewpoint.

http://www.demographicspro.com/insights ... on-twitter

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:46 am

Exactly wrote:Sure, and who decides what a nationalist twitter account is ? Since that claim is coming from a super anti trump newspaper you can be sure anything not pro-clinton is considered while supremacy by them. I see no methodology presented in the article, just a phony claim.
I was surprised too at how high the percentage was but probably not as surprised as you were. I think this is a pretty good site because they even said that just because someone follows a white nationalist websight it does not mean that they are in line with the views expressed there. They go on to say that even though probably not all of those following the white nationalist sights follow the views expressed it is very telling that of 10,000 trump supports over 3,000 followed the white nationalist sights while only 16 out of 10,000 clinton supporters did the same. I think you will have to admit that the difference between over 3,000 and 16 means that there really is something going on there....also don't forget that the KKK has declared that it supports trump.

For this to be completely above board they should repeat the study to see if the results are the same. It could be a fluke that they got these results...but I doubt it because the difference in numbers is so large.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:57 am

chownah wrote:
chownah wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/
thought I'd bump up this poll results site as it is probably one of the most credible ones available
chownah

Exactly
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:40 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Exactly » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:13 pm

When are we going to see such a study about clinton supporters following black supremacy websites ? Or about following websites that spew hate against the police or against whites that can cause division within the society ? Division that can lead to hate crimes such as the Dallas shooting ?

I agree white supremacy should not be promoted but neither should black supremacy. If that site with 0 negative articles about clinton is supposedly objective, I want to see a research about clinton supporters following black supremacy twitter accounts.

I am sure at least 50% of clinton supporters are following black lives matter twitter accounts.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257808/ ... hn-perazzo
Recently, BLM sponsored a panel discussion on “Policing, Race, and Injustice,” featuring a talk by former New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Shabazz. That's the same Malik Shabazz who has openly advocated a race war in America; who has exhorted blacks to avenge police shootings of African Americans by creating “funeral[s] in the police community”; who refers to “the white man” as black people's “common enemy”; who characterizes America's founders as nothing more than a loathsome pack of “Indian killers, slave traders, [and] slave owners”; and who praised Osama bin Laden after 9/11 as a Muslim “brother” and “a bold man” who was bravely “standing up” for his beliefs and “bringing reform to this world.”
And some words about their founder
The lead founder of BLM is Alicia Garza, a young woman who candidly reveres Assata Shakur—the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, and convicted cop-killer whose 1979 escape to Fidel Castro's Cuba was facilitated by the Weather Underground Organization and the Black Liberation Army. Others whom Garza praises for their “extraordinary” accomplishments include Angela Davis (a Marxist and former Black Panther); Ella Baker (an avowed socialist who had ties to the Communist Party USA and the Weather Underground); and Audre Lorde (a black Marxist lesbian feminist).
How is a radical marxist promoting hate against whites and police different than a radical nazist promoting hate against black people or jews ?

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by pulga » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:15 pm

Are the wheels falling off Hillary Clinton's aspiration to be president?

Rumor has it that the FBI is going to indict Hillary in January. If it is true that Hillary is distancing herself from Abedin and that Abedin might turn on her in the FBI investigation of the emails, what sort of future does Hillary have as president? It's interesting that President Obama isn't taking her side in the FBI disclosure of the emails and that he is a close friend of Tim Kaine. Yesterday Loretta Lynch had a meeting with Comey that is said to have been cordial. Is the plan to have Hillary win the election, only to be thrown under the bus by President Obama and Abedin?

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1602
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Bundokji » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:48 pm

I think Democrats made a mistake by nominating her in the first place. Trump would not have a chance against any other candidate in my opinion.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:50 pm

pulga wrote:Are the wheels falling off Hillary Clinton's aspiration to be president?

Rumor has it that the FBI is going to indict Hillary in January. If it is true that Hillary is distancing herself from Abedin and that Abedin might turn on her in the FBI investigation of the emails, what sort of future does Hillary have as president? It's interesting that President Obama isn't taking her side in the FBI disclosure of the emails and that he is a close friend of Tim Kaine. Yesterday Loretta Lynch had a meeting with Comey that is said to have been cordial. Is the plan to have Hillary win the election, only to be thrown under the bus by President Obama and Abedin?
The article you reference and your post have got nothing to say except for rumors and innuendo.....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:51 pm

Bundokji wrote:I think Democrats made a mistake by nominating her in the first place. Trump would not have a chance against any other candidate in my opinion.
I agree. I find it hard to believe that either of these candidates has gotten to where they are today. It is a sad commentary on the condition of the american electorate.
chownah

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by pulga » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:13 pm

chownah wrote: The article you reference and your post have got nothing to say except for rumors and innuendo.....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah
I may be wrong. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:39 pm

pulga wrote:
chownah wrote: The article you reference and your post have got nothing to say except for rumors and innuendo.....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah
I may be wrong. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.
Yeah, but what is known right now today is that you are spreading rumors and innuendo and from what you have been posting fore some time it seems that it is probably to try to influence the election....you seem to be supporting rumor and innuendo based voting....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:54 pm

chownah wrote:Yeah, but what is known right now today is that you are spreading rumors and innuendo and from what you have been posting fore some time it seems that it is probably to try to influence the election....you seem to be supporting rumor and innuendo based voting....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah
And you've done your very best to painstakingly nitpick every detail of any liberal opposition starting with Bernie and continuing with Hillary. I am sure the left would be just as appreciative of your efforts as your are disappointed with pulga's.

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:15 pm

SDC wrote:
chownah wrote:Yeah, but what is known right now today is that you are spreading rumors and innuendo and from what you have been posting fore some time it seems that it is probably to try to influence the election....you seem to be supporting rumor and innuendo based voting....thank you for showing your credibility.
chownah
And you've done your very best to painstakingly nitpick every detail of any liberal opposition starting with Bernie and continuing with Hillary. I am sure the left would be just as appreciative of your efforts as your are disappointed with pulga's.
I am not disappointed with pulga's efforts....I have begun to expect this from some but not all of trump supporters.
I don't support clinton or trump....they are both awful from my perspective. I respond to what I see here. If I question what people write here it is because I find it questionable. Please don't whine if people here are not able to answer my questions in a way which supports their conjectures. I challenge you to show anyplace where I report rumor and innuendo as anything other than that which should be unmasked and shown publicly. I challenge you to show where I knowingly advanced rumor and innuendo in anyone's behalf.
Can you show me where someone supporting clinton here spreads rumor and innuendo? If you can please do and I will gladly help in bringing it to light.
You seem to think that I have supported clinton and/or sanders. I challenge you to bring my statements which you think are this support and see if I used rumors, innuendo, exageration, etc. in making those statements....and even look carefully and see if I was actually supporting them or just dispelling mistaken ideas being promulgated surrounding them.
Your post=a whining cheap shot....why not reply with some substance.
Both candidates are deplorable it seems.
chownah
SDC,
Go read the article that pulga brought and tell me what it contains that relates to the clinton campaign besides rumor and innuendo. We can discuss it. Maybe I have missed something of substance....it has happened before.
chownah

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:36 pm

chownah wrote:Your post=a whining cheap shot...why not reply with some substance.
I'm in a cheap mood...waiting for next Tuesday.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests