Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

Someone is trying to smear Julian Assange

www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-tiny-online-dating-site-accused-j

www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

Will Self has had a privileged education. Jewish on his mother’s side, he attended UC School in Hampstead (an independent) and then went on to Oxford. His father was a prof at LSE. As Claig rightly suggests, Self is one of the metro elite. He has a snarling distaste for the ordinary man who may not be as articulate as himself, but who is just as alert to political shenanigans.

His background reminds me very much of Ed Miliband’s, i.e. North London, LSE, Oxbridge.

He sounds like a regressive leftie to me, who has an inherent hesitation to challenge bigotry when it occurs amongst those he supports as well as in some minority communities, all for the sake of political correctness. I’ve watched that Brexit vid with Dreda Mitchell, and Self is an arrogant tosser. I’ve met loads of them. Love the first comment under the vid: "Damit what went wrong? When we gave the poor the vote they weren't supposed to be able to change anything!!!!!"

claig

No, even the hecklers got bored with listening him

This is very good on Trump and the effects of post-factual politics on democracy.

"At times Trump has mused that “real” unemployment is as high as 42 percent , a comically hyperbolic figure. Such comments are part of his broader narrative of numerical nihilism, a political strategy of discrediting any statistic or fact that could obstruct his path to the presidency.
Faced with poll data showing that the Republican nominee is losing ground, for example, Trump and his supportersclaim that the surveys are skewed, that the reported results are just pro-Hillary Clinton propaganda, that rally crowd size is a much better predictor of an Election Day victory, la la la I can’t hear you."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-facts-dont-matter-how-can-democracy-survive/2016/10/17/560ff302-94a5-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49story.html?utmm_term=.2782e44beaba

"Whizzkids"

That's no way to post, Lweji... don't you know Repetition is the new Reasoning?

I'm done repeating myself.

And what about the firebombing?

You won't believe anything that doesn't confirm your world view even when the evidence is right there.

That is rich!
Have you said that to claig?

I'm just keeping my sceptical hat on in a campaign of dirty tricks.
They may or may not have paid protesters. There's nasty people on both sides.
But, yes, I don't blindly trust an edited video by a person who has a history of faking them. And I stress blindly.
Because I'm not gullible in relation to any candidate.

Because he was caught doing bad things for Hillary clinton

The guys resigned lweji

And why?

But I'll repeat what I posted just now.
Trump's was the only campaign where protesters got attacked.

Lweji imagining that trump paid people to say they were paid to cause trouble at his rallies is just desperate. You won't believe anything that doesn't confirm your world view even when the evidence is right there.

You know Blair hasn't been in power for quite some time right? If it's The Establishment circa 1998 you're intent on bringing down this could explain a lot
Actually, that was a defining moment in a lot of people's history that would have caused the break in the 'they know what they are doing' narrative. It was for me. I was a fully paid up member but my disgust was so visceral that it set me on the path of questioning 'expertise', questioning the discourse produced by these 'experts', questioning it all. This says it all:

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/oct/15/tony-blair-selfie-photo-op-imperial-war-museum

The guys resigned lweji

Read my posts below.

By the way, there was a rogue "not" in there.
I meant "I do think it's as likely"... although the meaning changes little.

Democrats fired

I do not think it's as likely that Clinton supporters caused trouble at Trump's rallies (or some paid them to) as that Trump paid people to say they were paid to cause trouble.

For anyone who's watched The Daily Show recorded interviews, but there for comedic value, it's very easy to manipulate videos to show what they want.

Regardless, putting a few people protesting is nothing like inciting supporters to attack them. Or to punch them.

All candidates dealt with hecklers and protesters. Only one got real trouble at his rallies.

Lweji are you claiming it's made up?

I'm not claiming anything.
You can draw your own conclusions from the guy"s history oF fake vides and paying people on them.

As you can put two and two together when you hear one man bragging of sexual assault and women complain about him sexually assaulting him.

And has anyone missed my link to a certain candidate's financial interests in so many countries that are incompatable with a possible role as president? Including in Russia?
Never mind foundation donations. Actual business dealings. Which is why business people should stay out of politics or sell their interests abroad.

Claig I saw that interview happen live. He barely looked at her the whole time. He was disgustingly snobby, misogynist and racist.

I think the great value of polls in this new unpredictable age is that they do lengthen the odds on the candidate most likely to win.

Lweji are you claiming it's made up? because the guy got fired. Are you trying to say it's not true that Clinton campaigners faked and filmed trouble at Trump rallies?

excuse me - a 15-year-old child actress - not 25 - great typo

I've watched that vid twice now, and it's shameful that campaigners will hire people to play a role

not only that - the campaign paid a 25-year-old actress to ask a cute anti-trump question at a hillary 'town hall'

Thanks for that link, Pallisters, I'll sleep a bit easier in my bed tonight!

That Sopel article is just an exercise in essay writing, claig - 'What Boris can do, so can I'. He doesn't believe Trump can win from here any more than you do, in your heart of hearts.

I read somewhere that Trump supporters, not being your regular Republicans, are more likely to not bother to vote down-ticket - they'll vote for Trump, and leave it at that. It's possible, I guess.