Weaver wrote:

Willie71 wrote:In aggregate polls, trump is behind by 5 points. All he needs is a terrorist attack or immigrant murder before the election to swing that difference.

We had a terrorist attack. It didn't help Drumpf.

I don't think anyone can claim with certainty whose unfavourables will be more detrimental. There is no precedent for this type of race. Clinton's corruption is front and center as is trumps racist buffoonery. Racist buffoonery just won in the UK, so put away the assuredness of any pundit.

Clinton isn't corrupt - despite decades of constant claims there STILL isn't actually any evidence against her - and her supporters see through the bullshit.

Watch the Dems cry as the hacked voting machines, voter purges, and restricted poll access affect the election. They didn't fix the problems after Bush V Gore, and the gerrymandering hasn't been addressed either.

If Clinton was a strong candidate, the split should be more like 65/35. When 40% of Americans would prefer none of the above, who the hell can predict what will happen.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Ya, the combination of the financial disparity and the layout of the electoral map spells disaster for Trump. Clinton is a fund raising juggernaut and Trump has done shockingly poor. That would be bad enough on it's own but on top of that is the fact that Clinton has half the electoral votes needed virtual locked up even by conservative estimates whereas Trump will be fighting for votes in all but the reddest states. Even in Texas Trump currently can't even muster a double digit lead in the polls whereas Clinton is leading by margins in or near the 20s in CA, NY, IL and other sizable blue states.

On a side note, one thing I'm quite amused by is how the same people who complain about the MSM and money in politics having so much influence relative to Bernie getting trounced are now burying their heads in the sand pretending the same won't apply for Clinton over Trump. If Clinton is so detested and such a poor candidate yet comfortably defeated Sanders, who's quite likable and put together an outstanding campaign, why the fuck would you expect Trump to be able to beat her?

Trump has had the highest media exposure of any candidate this election. Of course we figure in media coverage. It's cute that you are amused while completely missing the point.

Total media coverage is more important than positive/negative balance.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The antivaxxer MD in favour of homeopathy?
'
I'm OK if no one knows about her.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The antivaxxer MD in favour of homeopathy?
'
I'm OK if no one knows about her.

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsustrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.

Briton wrote:There are only two candidates?

purplerat wrote:

Briton wrote:There are only two candidates?

oh ffs

I was making a comment on media coverage so as far as that goes yes it is for all intents and purposes 2 candidates. If you want to go around for the next 5 months qualifying every statement about Trump vs Clinton with a notice that there are in fact additional candidates then go right ahead. I'm not going to bother myself because anybody not engaging in childish rhetoric knows exactly what is meant by referring to the two candidates.

purplerat wrote:

Briton wrote:There are only two candidates?

oh ffs

I was making a comment on media coverage so as far as that goes yes it is for all intents and purposes 2 candidates. If you want to go around for the next 5 months qualifying every statement about Trump vs Clinton with a notice that there are in fact additional candidates then go right ahead. I'm not going to bother myself because anybody not engaging in childish rhetoric knows exactly what is meant by referring to the two candidates.

Briton wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The antivaxxer MD in favour of homeopathy?
'
I'm OK if no one knows about her.

Stein says on Reddit (when asked what the Green Party campaign's official stance was on vaccination and homeopathy) :

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsustrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.

Not sure it's fair to label her an 'antivaxxer' yet, not enough information. How did you come to the conclusion the she's an antivaxxer and in favour of homeopathy?

proudfootz wrote:You know, a journalist actually asking the candidate about rumors spread by the opposition would be silly.

That's why we should believe whatever Trump says about Clinton.

Briton wrote:

proudfootz wrote:You know, a journalist actually asking the candidate about rumors spread by the opposition would be silly.

That's why we should believe whatever Trump says about Clinton.

Interesting how some Clinton supporters are so willing to spread lies while at the same time wailing about any criticisms of their candidate and dismissing them as smears.

Briton wrote:

proudfootz wrote:You know, a journalist actually asking the candidate about rumors spread by the opposition would be silly.

That's why we should believe whatever Trump says about Clinton.

Interesting how some Clinton supporters are so willing to spread lies while at the same time wailing about any criticisms of their candidate and dismissing them as smears.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Briton wrote:

proudfootz wrote:You know, a journalist actually asking the candidate about rumors spread by the opposition would be silly.

That's why we should believe whatever Trump says about Clinton.

Interesting how some Clinton supporters are so willing to spread lies while at the same time wailing about any criticisms of their candidate and dismissing them as smears.

Could you be anymore vague in your accusations?

Willie71 wrote:

Briton wrote:

proudfootz wrote:You know, a journalist actually asking the candidate about rumors spread by the opposition would be silly.

That's why we should believe whatever Trump says about Clinton.

Interesting how some Clinton supporters are so willing to spread lies while at the same time wailing about any criticisms of their candidate and dismissing them as smears.

The level of hypocrisy is incredible, isn't it? It's like discussing issues with conservatives.