Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

  1. Oct 22, 2016 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's please keep this civil and within the rules. This is Current News Events, not Politics, so if you have an article posted in the current news in a mainstream source, you may post it to be discussed as long as you stay within the guidelines. This replaces the old POTUS thread.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/ [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 22, 2016 #2

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Oct 22, 2016 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    @Borg I just hope that this country can heal afterwards.
     
  5. Oct 22, 2016 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Please realize this is no longer politics or government, this is the Current News Events forum. If it's not in a current news article, it can't be posted here. If it's about economics, you might want to try GD. You'd THINK the budget would be the news with the election a few weeks away.
     
  6. Oct 22, 2016 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin holds event in Boise
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/67ab9577-ff0b-323c-a51b-e89f63302c4d/independent-presidential.html [Broken]

    It would be interesting if he took several states.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  7. Oct 22, 2016 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The serious problem with these independents is that they pose a danger to the actual election of the two actually viably electable candidates and can have potentially VERY BAD outcomes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  8. Oct 23, 2016 #7

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    This one this election, i mean ,

    might raise everyone's awareness of electoral college

    interesting array of electors follows that article .

    old jim
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2016
  9. Oct 23, 2016 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Interesting and disturbing. The electors seem to be folks who are highly motivated to participate deeply in one of the parties and in the process.

    Also - https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html


    Evan McMullin on the this election. He makes some good points.
    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-race-42997139

    If he wins Utah, he will be the first representative from a third party or alternative to win a state since George Wallace in 1968.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2016
  10. Oct 23, 2016 #9

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    electoralcollege.jpg

    I guess that's in line with fundamentals of representative government , ie republic ?
    We democratically select representatives (electors)who elect the president.

    okay, that's the way it is.

    This year might be more interesting than even 2000 .
     
  11. Oct 23, 2016 #10

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How so? The chances of an electoral deadlock are small, last time was 192 years ago.
     
  12. Oct 23, 2016 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ABC's Stephanopolous interviewed both McMullin (today, per Astronuc's post above) and Green Party candidate Jill Stein back in August. I find a comparison of the interviews interesting and instructive about the media, given Stein is likely taking votes from Clinton, and McMullin taking votes from Trump.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-clinton-earned-vote-jill-stein/story?id=41538685
    Video Title: Trump, Clinton "Have Not Earned Our Vote", says Jill Stein.
    Intro video clip from Hollywood actress Silverman to Democrats at DNC Convention that voting for other than Clinton is "ridiculous".
    Stein interview questions, my summary:
    Q1: Why Jill Stein?
    Q2: Doesn't a vote for you help elect Trump?
    Q3: Doesn't a vote for you help elect Trump (like Nader with Gore v Bush)?
    Q4: "You are saying things that no other candidate [is] willing to say," that is, you want to disarm the police, i.e. aren't you a nut job?
    Q5: Aren't you "far from being able to win the race", i.e. hopeless?
    The broadcast Stein responses include no singular attacks on Clinton. There is no air time where Stein mentions the name "Clinton". If she did, those responses did not make it out of the editing room.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-race-42997139
    Video Title: "Evan McMullin Says GOP Leaders are 'Putting Party Over Principle'"
    McMullin interview questions, my summary:
    Q1: 1st Candidate to possibly win a state since George Wallace, i.e. a hopeful candidate.
    Q2: Utah officials have been very critical of Trump. Would a public endorsement from Sen Lee help...
    Q3: What is your movement?
    Q4: Seems like there will be a "civil war" in the GOP no matter what happens?
    Q5. Is it fair to compare a President Clinton to a President Trump?
    The broadcast McMullin responses include several direct attacks on Trump.
     
  13. Oct 23, 2016 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    continued...

    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2016
  14. Oct 25, 2016 #13

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Snopes has an interesting piece on that story. They say it's part true.

    http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/
    so Hillary was not the first to comingle what shouldn't have got comingled. Understandable.

    But i think ms Burleigh showed her colors when she buried this side of the story
    https://www.wired.com/2009/12/22-million-emails-found/
     
  15. Oct 25, 2016 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's from 2009. Where are the e-mails? It says they would be available to the public shortly.

    What the story shows is that it is not true that Clinton is the only one to use a private email server, she is not the first, she is not the only or first to be accused of "missing" emails the RNC was millions times worse. Read on.

     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2016
  16. Oct 25, 2016 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    CNN(/Clinton) has found a way to generate a second news cycle out of literally nothing (Trump saying he won't do something) by first reporting the nothing as a national crisis last week and now correcting themselves and re-reporting (?) that the nothing is in fact nothing:
    No Need for Suspense: Election Law Doesn't Care if Trump (or Clinton) Concede
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/donald-trump-election-concession-law/index.html

    I wonder if they teach this in journalism school? :rolleyes:

    Now it is Clinton's turn to give a speech saying it doesn't matter if Trump concedes or not. I think it would help her with that air of inevitability she's pushing now.
     
  17. Oct 25, 2016 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Terribly written "news article", but I'm struggling to find relevance to the thread. I do find it interesting though that they don't bring up Bush's mishandling of classified information.
    Has anyone, anywhere, ever thought that?

    Since the "article" implies rather than making coherent points, I've had to figure out for myself what they are after. So my other takeaway is that the author believes Clinton's IT manager should be in jail. On that, the author and I agree.
     
  18. Oct 25, 2016 #17

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I read both of them .

    Bush admin turned the emails over to national archives. Why they're not out in public i don't know.
    There's an inference that Cheney intentionally got rid of some. Others simply timed out and were dropped after thirty days automatically by the mail handler..

    Your points are quite so, except for 20 million is only 606 times 33,000.
    But i won't nitpick further.

    My point was "Mud is mud be it red or blue."
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2016
  19. Oct 25, 2016 #18
    I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of this to the current 2016 election (which I believe are the rules for this thread?).

    When we go to the voting booth this year, we can only deal with the information we know at the time. This 'revelation' was unknown to us when it might have affected our vote - Bush is not on the ballot in 2016. And two wrongs don't make a right (though I disagree that these are equivalent wrongs anyhow).

    What we do know is that the State department considered the two matters to be different. And politifact considers the claim that 'it was the same as predecessors' to be 'mostly false'.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

    So what do we know that is relevant to the 2016 election? We know that HRC lied to the public, and lied about lying to the public ("short circuited"?) about how she handled sensitive info. Had the FBI asked her about her public statements, she'd either have had to come clean, or she'd be guilty of lying to the FBI. Why did the FBI not ask her to confirm/deny her public statements? That seems like a routine part of any investigation.

    We know that HRC repeatedly misleads the public with selective, out-of-context quoting of the FBI statements, and the main-stream media does not call her out on it. She says "the FBI found no evidence" that her server was hacked. OK, they did say that. But follow the next sentences, and the context becomes clear, these hackers are too sophisticated to leave evidence behind, the lack of evidence isn't meaningful - (from a transcript of Comey's statement) "But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account."

    Comey also said: "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

    So, she acted unreasonably and was "extremely careless" with sensitive info. And this article:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/

    indicates that HRC could probably not hold a security clearance given these reports. The POTUS technically does not need a security clearance, but I the idea that they could not obtain one should be a major concern for any voter.

    And now we have evidence that the HRC campaign has rigged elections - Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to step down after it was found the DNC was acting to rig the primary for HRC and against Bernie. HRC couldn't even fight an almost unknown Senator from Vermont w/o 'help'?

    And we have evidence that high level members of the HRC campaign (people who visited the White House and met with Obama numerous times) have paid people to incite violence at Trump rallies, so they could point to how Trump stirs up violence. This wan't denied, people were fired.

    And now we have evidence that HRC/DNC controls the press - the New York Times (the 'newspaper of record' ) ran stories by them for approval and accepted edits from them before publication. Aren't you afraid of a political party that has that sort of control over the press?

    We have two flawed names on the ballot. Trump is a big question mark in many ways, but HRC has proven herself to be unfit for the office. I have to vote against what we know about HRC, grit my teeth and give the businessman a chance. How I wish Carly Fiorina was on the ballot!
     
  20. Oct 25, 2016 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Link title on CNN:
    "Trump Walks out of 1990 CNN Interview" (note the present tense)
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media/trump-1990-walkout/index.html

    Then there's a video of the 1990 walkout, with the caption "Donald Trump made news last week when he abruptly walked away from two local television interviews..."

    By this, clearly they mean Trump invented a time machine, went back in time and walked out of the 1990 interview. How he did it or how the interviewers did not notice that the 45 year old Trump had been replaced by his 71 year old self isn't discussed in the article.

    Is this news? I don't even know anymore.
     
  21. Oct 25, 2016 #20

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Is anything coming out, really "news"?

    Within the last few days, I've "re-followed" both of my sisters on Facebook. Both are Trump supporters, and I've been anxiously waiting for what they view as "important news".
    The sister I've been discussing in my last few posts, shared yesterday, that Trump has the endorsement of 88 retired admirals and generals.

    I considered it a personal jab, as she had previously, privately texted me; "I have been watching the corruption of the Clintons unfold for years. I don't have to dissect every breath they take. If you want to see America, the country you were a soldier for, get flushed down the toilet due to their corruption you are going against your own values regarding "top secret" information. Denying its existence puts our democracy at risk. It's too bad. Haiti was robbed. Money was donated to the Clinton foundation for haitis relief and it never got to them. The rich STEALING from the poor, its unconscionable."

    We had been discussing the fact, that I was privy to "secret" information, whilst a submariner in the USN, and the fact that I've never shared any of that information, over the last 33 years. Though, my information was, as far as I can remember, all classified as "NOFORN".

    NOFORN: Distribution to non-US citizens is prohibited, regardless of their clearance or access permissions (NO FOReign National access allowed). [wiki]​

    Which, in my mind, had my sister telling me, in other words; "You are a patriot, and Hillary is a traitor. How can you support her?"

    Which had me respond, to her above attack with; "I dissect everything. But dissecting laundry lists consumes a lot of my time. Since I've dissected nearly all of your items, and found them to be mostly untrue, but you won't believe me, I'm afraid I'm going to stop researching them."

    Which is sad, because two of her stories were really interesting. As I mentioned before, my eyebrows really got a workout, when I read that one article.

    I suppose, it goes back to the parable of "The boy who cried wolf"

    ps. I of course researched, and found that Mrs. Clinton, aka Hillary Brussel Sprouts, has the endorsement of 110 retired generals and admirals.
    But, I also checked out the wiki "endorsements list" of the two candidates, and decided, that endorsements are kind of irrelevant.

    pps. hmmmm.... I think I'll now ask my sister, if she likes brussel sprouts, as, that question makes about as much sense, as this election.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start
  1. Doom (2016) (Replies: 14)

  2. Rio 2016 (Replies: 39)

  3. Halloween 2016 (Replies: 5)

Loading...