2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

B_Wayne

Manafort is pretty despicable in general, has been working for warlords across the globe for decades.. So even outside of the Ukraine stuff, it's pretty disturbing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients

Christy42

B0jangles wrote: »

Just listening to Rudy Giuliani introducing Trump; are my ears broken or did he just say that there were no successful Islamic terrorist attacks in America in the 8 years before Obama was elected?

:eek::eek::eek:

Edit: he bloody well did! https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/765254440085577728

I legitimately did not believe you and listened to the video to correct you.

I just can't figure this out. Was he using a teleprompter in that bit? I mean could there be some excuse if he just went off on a mad tangent.

Of all the people to have such little knowledge of recent New York history...

It could also be part of Trump's current fiction that Obama created ISIS. I wonder when he is going to bring Gandalf on as an advisor.

That must be incredibly insulting to anyone directly affected by 9/11 that the new York mayor at the time has forgotten their sacrifice.

Just insane.

Igotadose

Christy42 wrote: »

I wonder when he is going to bring Gandalf on as an advisor.

Gandalf has too much self respect to work for the Dark Lord!:p

Black Swan

15 August 2016: The polls to be used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to determine the 15% minimum threshold qualification for inclusion in September debates are:

• ABC-Washington Post
• CBS-New York Times
• CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
• Fox News
• NBC-Wall Street Journal

Other qualifications were announced by CPD. Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein must meet these minimums or be excluded from the presidential debates, so reports the CPD.

TheDoctor

15% is too high a threshold. Personally think 5% would do to eliminate the non-serious candidates.

ancapailldorcha

TheDoctor wrote: »

15% is too high a threshold. Personally think 5% would do to eliminate the non-serious candidates.

This is exactly the point methinks. Neither major party will poll below 15% which 15% will keep others out. It's a racket as I see it.

Quin_Dub

What's the cut off date for the polls ?

15% by what date?

Also is it calculated for each debate or only once for the set?

Akrasia

Black Swan wrote: »

15 August 2016: The polls to be used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to determine the 15% minimum threshold qualification for inclusion in September debates are:

• ABC-Washington Post
• CBS-New York Times
• CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
• Fox News
• NBC-Wall Street Journal

Other qualifications were announced by CPD. Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein must meet these minimums or be excluded from the presidential debates, so reports the CPD.

At his current rate of decline, Trump might struggle to qualify for the debates

Nody

TheDoctor wrote: »

15% is too high a threshold. Personally think 5% would do to eliminate the non-serious candidates.

I think 15% makes sense in the run up to the election when there are only two candidates on the table realistically. What would be needed however is to have a wider debate earlier but neither main party wants that because they are all involved in trying to become the main candidate for their respective party (which means they'll take positions they don't want advertised to widely).

Black Swan

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What's the cut off date for the polls ?

15% by what date?

By mid-September 2016 polls, if I read the announcement correctly.

TheDoctor

Unlikely Johnson will get to 15% at this stage. Still polling 8-10%

Brian?

B0jangles wrote: »

Just listening to Rudy Giuliani introducing Trump; are my ears broken or did he just say that there were no successful Islamic terrorist attacks in America in the 8 years before Obama was elected?

:eek::eek::eek:

Edit: he bloody well did! https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/765254440085577728

Obama elected in 2008.

Planes hit the WTC in 2001.

If Rudy is telling the truth, it's final confirmation that 9/11 was an inside job. The truth is out!

Or else Rudy is lying hack.

ancapailldorcha

TheDoctor wrote: »

Unlikely Johnson will get to 15% at this stage. Still polling 8-10%

I think it'll be criminal if he doesn't at least get in some of the debates. This is the election that shows how unfairly rigged the system is.

TheDoctor

Agreed, no reason with his current numbers why he shouldn't get onto the debates.

alaimacerc

Brian? wrote: »

Obama elected in 2008.

Planes hit the WTC in 2001.

If Rudy is telling the truth, it's final confirmation that 9/11 was an inside job. The truth is out!

Or else Rudy is lying hack.

This is breathtaking stuff indeed. I don't know how they plan on spinning this, so I can only guess it's some combination of:-

Talk about "Obama/Clinton getting elected". Pivot to blaming the administration of the previous Clinton.

Brazen postfactuality. Tell whatever lies one likes about "radical Islamic terrorism", on the basis that it gets people talking about same. Hence you're playing Terrorball, and the rules of Terrorball are whatever it takes for the Republican to win, and the Democrats to lose. Cf "founder of ISIS", "£350m/week to the NHS if you vote BrExit", etc.

InTheTrees

The Clinton campaign today suspended TV advertising in Colorado, pennsylvania and virginia.

Three vital swing states that Clinton is so far ahead in that they dont need to spend the money there anymore and can go after other swing states.

Amerika

The Libertarian and Green Party’s lawsuit to be included in the big debates has been tossed out by a federal judge. So it won’t happen. But there is nothing in our laws that mandate only one Commission can host debates. Stein and Johnson should find a an organization willing to organize and host a debate and hopefully find a national venue that will broadcast it. If people are interesting in what third party candidates say they will watch it. I'd watch it, but the chances in me or anyone else voting for either of them in large numbers is slim to none, which might be the whole point.

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Clinton campaign today suspended TV advertising in Colorado, pennsylvania and virginia.

Three vital swing states that Clinton is so far ahead in that they dont need to spend the money there anymore and can go after other swing states.

It was on CNN that Clinton has spent $58,000,000 on TV advertising and Trump has spent 0.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

It was on CNN that Clinton has spent $58,000,000 on TV advertising and Trump has spent 0.

Trumps campaign is self destructing as a result.

Ironic that it's the democrats who are in favour of campaign finance reform and the republicans who pushed for this ridiculous situation with financing. They can't even play their own game.

If Hillary is elected, the citizens united court decision that opened the door for all the shady money will be overturned.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

The Libertarian and Green Party’s lawsuit to be included in the big debates has been tossed out by a federal judge. So it won’t happen. But there is nothing in our laws that mandate only one Commission can host debates. Stein and Johnson should find a an organization willing to organize and host a debate and hopefully find a national venue that will broadcast it. If people are interesting in what third party candidates say they will watch it. I'd watch it, but the chances in me or anyone else voting for either of them in large numbers is slim to none, which might be the whole point.

But is that because they get no exposure or because there's no support for their policies ??

People like us know about them because we're interested and engaged in politics in general (which is why we spend time in places like this) but does the average guy in the street even know that Johnson & Stein exist?

What are the big two afraid of?

Are they afraid that their presence might confuse people or are they afraid that giving them a platform might make significant numbers vote 3rd party?

Amerika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But is that because they get no exposure or because there's no support for their policies ??

People like us know about them because we're interested and engaged in politics in general (which is why we spend time in places like this) but does the average guy in the street even know that Johnson & Stein exist?

What are the big two afraid of?

Are they afraid that their presence might confuse people or are they afraid that giving them a platform might make significant numbers vote 3rd party?

In the past I would agree that no exposure would have been the major culprit to not having their policies known. But since the age of the internet, with instant access to anything about the candidates available, the debates appear to have become more of an entertainment endeavor, with most people watching merely to have their predetermined views stroked.

ancapailldorcha

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What are the big two afraid of?

Simple. The voter making an informed decision. It's easier to compete against one other candidate than several so you raise the barriers of entry to the arena. Cut funding so large backers are needed and set a threshold to keep the upstarts out.

Look at this election. We have Trump, an angry billionaire in the guise of the common man and Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of the establishment replete with spotty record and dodgy ethics. How do you think Gary Johnson with his message of responsible, small governemnt would fare in a 3-day debate? My guess is extremely well and all the more reason to exclude him.

Nody

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What are the big two afraid of?

Are they afraid that their presence might confuse people or are they afraid that giving them a platform might make significant numbers vote 3rd party?

Not significant but enough in key states to swing it. Look at every time there has been three candidates on the election and consistently the third candidate will steal enough people from one candidate to swing it to the other. They are so close in general in the swing states that they can't afford to lose their core voters (but they would happily support one that would steal from the other party).

Suryavarman

Nody wrote: »

Not significant but enough in key states to swing it. Look at every time there has been three candidates on the election and consistently the third candidate will steal enough people from one candidate to swing it to the other. They are so close in general in the swing states that they can't afford to lose their core voters (but they would happily support one that would steal from the other party).

The only time a third candidate has been included in TV debates was Perot in 1992. And he was leading in the polls at the start of the year before dropping off. The debates didn't make a blind bit of difference.

Being in the debates will make little to no difference this year either. Anyone that's willing to vote third party already knows about Johnson and Stein. The debates made no difference for Johnson in 2012 as he is a terrible public speaker.

I would like to see third party candidates included in at least some of the debates but acting like it would turn the election on its head is just wrong.

Quin_Dub

Suryavarman wrote: »

The only time a third candidate has been included in TV debates was Perot in 1992. And he was leading in the polls at the start of the year before dropping off. The debates didn't make a blind bit of difference.

Being in the debates will make little to no difference this year either. Anyone that's willing to vote third party already knows about Johnson and Stein. The debates made no difference for Johnson in 2012 as he is a terrible public speaker.

I would like to see third party candidates included in at least some of the debates but acting like it would turn the election on its head is just wrong.

Not overnight and not for this election , but surely increased awareness of alternatives might help getting more Others/Independents elected to congress/senate seats and build up the alternatives over time.


There are currently 2 "others" in the Senate and none in Congress.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not overnight and not for this election , but surely increased awareness of alternatives might help getting more Others/Independents elected to congress/senate seats and build up the alternatives over time.

They're working against an electoral system that's so pathologically degenerate a case of "two entrenched parties" as to make the UK's version of FPTP look benign. Unless there's wholesale change to the electoral college, a "third party" can only thrive by mugging one of the other two, and replacing it wholesale. Invariably a long and painful process that has the other party rubbing its hands in glee and making hay all that time.

There are currently 2 "others" in the Senate and none in Congress.

Two semi-detached Democrats with plausible deniability. Those in the House historically were much the same (or the Republican mirror-image).

Black Swan

Today Donald Trump has been doing poorly in national polling, but given that over half the states (35 plus DC) allow voting early with absentee ballots and other forms of early voting, Minnesota and South Dakota as early as 23 September 2016, Trump may not have time to reverse his negative position in national polls. During the 2012 presidential election 32% of voters had cast their ballots before November general election day, and this percentage has been going up (20% 2004; 29.7% 2008; 32% 2012), and may continue to rise in 2016. Apparently Hillary Clinton has been pounding early voting states with ads, while Donald Trump has not. It's possible, although perhaps improbable for 2016, that the presidential election will have been decided before 8 November 2016.

EDIT:
Just looked again today at the RCP list of national polls, and Clinton continues to lead Trump in the 21 most recent polls ranging from 1 to 15 percent. The most recent national poll RCP listed where Trump led Clinton ended 26 July 2016 with the expected boost that normally occurs after a national convention.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Apparently Hillary Clinton has been pounding early voting states with ads, while Donald Trump has not.

As someone who has followed US elections pretty closely for over twenty years the trump campaign dumfounds me. I'm baffled.

I heard this morning that in Florida trump has one office. One. You can't run any kind of get-out-the-vote movement with one office. How will you ever coordinate volunteers with one office? And he desperately needs Florida. And its not just Florida, its the same in most of the swing states.

K-9

Campaigns have turned it around before with 3 months to go but it will take something huge as Trump would say himself, but he still faces the problem he has even higher unfavourable ratings than Clinton. Would it automatically transfer to support for Trump or would loads of people just abstain?

Quin_Dub

K-9 wrote: »

Campaigns have turned it around before with 3 months to go but it will take something huge as Trump would say himself, but he still faces the problem he has even higher unfavourable ratings than Clinton. Would it automatically transfer to support for Trump or would loads of people just abstain?

Trump clearly not planning to try to appeal to anyone beyond his existing base..

Just hired the CEO of Breitbart to take over managing his campaign

ECO_Mental

He is also trying to solidify his popularity with the female vote as well in that he has now hired or Rodger Ailes to help him out and to be an advisor. :rolleyes: Reported on CNN this afternoon

Thee Rodger Ailes who had to quit/fired from Fox news for sexual harassment allegations etc.

Do know what I actually dont think Trump has a brain in his head? in what planet would a presidential campaign look for advice from a very high profile person who is currently being investigated for sexual harassment.

unbelievable:o

K-9

That is a genuinely awe inspiring decision on Ailes, and not in a good way.

Can anybody have a stab at explaining the reasoning in that one?

Quin_Dub

ECO_Mental wrote: »

He is also trying to solidify his popularity with the female vote as well in that he has now hired or Rodger Ailes to help him out and to be an advisor. :rolleyes: Reported on CNN this afternoon

K-9 wrote: »

That is a genuinely awe inspiring decision on Ailes, and not in a good way.

Can anybody have a stab at explaining the reasoning in that one?

Has that been confirmed by the Trump camp as they've been denying it for a few days now - Think it was the NYT that said it initially over the week-end..

ECO_Mental

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Has that been confirmed by the Trump camp as they've been denying it for a few days now - Think it was the NYT that said it initially over the week-end..

Well I think it's an "unofficial" position he met him at one of his golf courses over the weekend.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

That is a genuinely awe inspiring decision on Ailes, and not in a good way.

Can anybody have a stab at explaining the reasoning in that one?

I understand if there was to any advisory by Ailes, that it is informal.

I don’t understand the second part of your question. Ailes is obviously an intelligent person who know how to create winners. Is the problem you have because Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment by women from FoxNews, who have previously praised him in books? And if that’s the case, I don’t understand why anyone would take umbrage with Ailes, yet stay silent on Bill Clinton, who has been reported to be a serial abuser of women, who is married to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary has stated Bill would have an important role in her administration. If there was any real outrage over a powerful man's mistreatment of women, it should be directed at Bill Clinton, and his enabling wife.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I understand if there was to any advisory by Ailes, that it is informal.

I don’t understand the second part of your question. Ailes is obviously an intelligent person who know how to create winners. Is the problem you have because Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment by women from FoxNews, who have previously praised him in books? And if that’s the case, I don’t understand why anyone would take umbrage with Ailes, yet stay silent on Bill Clinton, who has been reported to be a serial abuser of women, who is married to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary has stated Bill would have an important role in her administration. If there was any real outrage over a powerful man's mistreatment of women, it should be directed at Bill Clinton, and his enabling wife.

I don't see how you can have any trouble understanding the second half of his question. Trump is a misogynist that has just hired a man recently fired for sexual harassment. On what planet is that a good idea?

Black Swan

Trump continues to claim that the general election will be fixed or rigged so that he will not win the presidency. Of course Trump has no substantial evidence to support his claims about the future election, just feelings or a crystal ball. Trump is asking his believers to become poll "observers." This raises another concern that Trump's poll observers may function to intimidate eligible voters from voting during the 8 November 2016 election. The poll observer problem occurred in past elections:

in the 1980s, the Republican National Committee was found to have engaged in discriminatory intimidation tactics aimed at minority voters, such as having off-duty law enforcement officials, sometimes armed, standing in front of the polls, or having observers question voters about their eligibility. Democrats sued, and the result was a federal consent decree: Now the RNC’s activities at polling places are under court supervision until at least 2017.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump continues to claim that the general election will be fixed or rigged so that he will not win the presidency. Of course Trump has no substantial evidence to support his claims about the future election, just feelings. Trump is asking his believers to become poll "observers." This raises another concern that Trump's poll observers may function to intimidate eligible voters from voting during the 8 November 2016 election. The poll observer problem occurred in past elections:

It is a little ironic for Trump to be calling the general election as one that will be fixed or rigged given probably his best chance of actually winning is the voter suppression efforts which the Republican party have engaged in over recent years ahead of the 2016 general election.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see how you can have any trouble understanding the second half of his question. Trump is a misogynist that has just hired a man recently fired for sexual harassment. On what planet is that a good idea?

Okay, I can understand your outrage, as long as you have the same outrage towards Hillary and Bill Clinton. Or is it really just the tired old adage... Republican bad, Democrat good? And please provide sources that shows he has been hired, instead of just rumors that he might be advising on an informal basis. Or is it only me that is required to provide sources for statements made?

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

I understand if there was to any advisory by Ailes, that it is informal.

I don’t understand the second part of your question. Ailes is obviously an intelligent person who know how to create winners. Is the problem you have because Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment by women from FoxNews, who have previously praised him in books? And if that’s the case, I don’t understand why anyone would take umbrage with Ailes, yet stay silent on Bill Clinton, who has been reported to be a serial abuser of women, who is married to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary has stated Bill would have an important role in her administration. If there was any real outrage over a powerful man's mistreatment of women, it should be directed at Bill Clinton, and his enabling wife.

I think the issue with Ailes & Trump is the message it sends to potential voters..

I don't disagree with you that a very similar argument could be made about Bill Clinton as is being made currently against Ailes..

For both Trump and Clinton their current base of support have either accepted those arguments or compartmentalised them such that they are happy to vote for their chosen candidate as is.

However , what Trump needs to do now to have any chance of winning is to increase his popularity with the undecided , middle ground voters beyond his current support base.

Trump associating himself (officially or unofficially) with Ailes does absolutely nothing to encourage new support.

What neutral is going to say to themselves - "Oh I see Trump has hired (or is getting unofficial/free advice from) a guy that just got fired from Fox News for allegations of Sexual assault etc. - Definitely going to vote for him now"

Clinton (Hillary), based on current polls and projections doesn't have anything like the same need to broaden her appeal...

It's the repeated "doubling down" on his core voters that Trump is doing lately that is killing any chance he might have of winning..

It's his seeming total lack of awareness of what's actually required of him to win that I find fascinating..

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, I can understand your outrage, as long as you have the same outrage towards Hillary and Bill Clinton. Or is it really just the tired old adage... Republican bad, Democrat good? And please provide sources that shows he has been hired, instead of just rumors that he might be advising on an informal basis. Or is it only me that is required to provide sources for statements made?

It's being widely reported that Ailes is a part of the campaign team. Providing a link is a waste of time.

I didn't realise Hillary and Bill Clinton were persistently making misogynistic comments and had a man recently fired for sexual harassment as a part of the campaign team.

Amerika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think the issue with Ailes & Trump is the message it sends to potential voters..

I don't disagree with you that a very similar argument could be made about Bill Clinton as is being made currently against Ailes..

For both Trump and Clinton their current base of support have either accepted those arguments or compartmentalised them such that they are happy to vote for their chosen candidate as is.

However , what Trump needs to do now to have any chance of winning is to increase his popularity with the undecided , middle ground voters beyond his current support base.

Trump associating himself (officially or unofficially) with Ailes does absolutely nothing to encourage new support.

What neutral is going to say to themselves - "Oh I see Trump has hired (or is getting unofficial/free advice from) a guy that just got fired from Fox News for allegations of Sexual assault etc. - Definitely going to vote for him now"

Clinton (Hillary), based on current polls and projections doesn't have anything like the same need to broaden her appeal...

It's the repeated "doubling down" on his core voters that Trump is doing lately that is killing any chance he might have of winning..

It's his seeming total lack of awareness of what's actually required of him to win that I find fascinating..

What I get from this is Trump is held to a different standard than Clinton. The minutiae is scrutinized by the media with Trump and gargantua is ignored by the media for Clinton. Trump gave a couple of excellent speeches the last couple of days, stayed on script, and which involved little controversy. Is the media reporting on that? Does anybody even know what his speeches were about? Or is the rumor that Ailes might be advising him the talk of the town? We all know the answer.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

What I get from this is Trump is held to a different standard than Clinton. The minutiae is scrutinized by the media with Trump and gargantua is ignored by the media for Clinton. Trump gave a couple of excellent speeches the last couple of days, stayed on script, and which involved little controversy. Is the media reporting on that? Does anybody even know what his speeches were about? Or is the rumor that Ailes might be advising him the talk of the town? We all know the answer.

If Trump stopped saying and doing stupid things then the media might be able to talk about the "good" things he is doing and saying. It's hard to blame the media for Trump being a terrible candidate.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

What I get from this is Trump is held to a different standard than Clinton. The minutiae is scrutinized by the media with Trump and gargantua is ignored by the media for Clinton. Trump gave a couple of excellent speeches the last couple of days, stayed on script, and which involved little controversy. Is the media reporting on that? Does anybody even know what his speeches were about? Or is the rumor that Ailes might be advising him the talk of the town? We all know the answer.

The Media go with the stories that get the most clicks and views (and by extension - Revenue).

I remain unconvinced that there is any kind of mass media manipulation going on against Trump , they are just going where the money is..

Sadly what's interesting to the average person is the scandalous, the salacious and the vapid..(Why else would the f**king Kardashians even be a thing!!).

So for the media, Trumps missteps , his random outbursts , his choice of potentially dubious support team etc. are always going to be the more attractive story compared to "Trump gives boring normal politician speech" or even "Hillary Clinton continues to do what Hillary Clinton has done for decades"

It is without question a damning indictment of modern society (and the media for pandering to it) but it is the place we find ourselves in.

John Oliver did a piece on his show a few weeks ago about the decline in "proper" journalism , in particular the loss of local print media in the US which I think tells an important story as to why we have the media we have (and it's not about corruption or bias)

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's being widely reported that Ailes is a part of the campaign team. Providing a link is a waste of time.

Ah, it is only me then that needs to provide sources to back up statements made. Just as I suspected. And you got nothing to back up what you said... also as expected.

I didn't realise Hillary and Bill Clinton were persistently making misogynistic comments and had a man recently fired for sexual harassment as a part of the campaign team.

Did you know Hillary stated that all alleged rape victims should be believed. She even had it on her website. Then someone, not a brave member of the biased media mind you, had the unmitigated gall to ask her at a town hall meeting that if all alleged rape victims should be believed, what about your husband's accusers? And now that a return of allegations that Bill raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary threatened her to keep quiet might get some traction again, Hillary Clinton's website removed the promise to 'believe' all sexual assault survivors.

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

Of course you have go Europe to find this out (and I'll provide sources for this information, even before being required to do so :rolleyes:)...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html

And let me guess... you heard it here first... obviously.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Ah, it is only me then that needs to provide sources to back up statements made. Just as I suspected. And you got nothing to back up what you said... also as expected.


Did you know Hillary stated that all alleged rape victims should be believed. She even had it on her website. Then someone, not a brave member of the biased media mind you, had the unmitigated gall to ask her at a town hall meeting that if all alleged rape victims should be believed, what about your husband's accusers? And now that a return of allegations that Bill raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary threatened her to keep quiet might get some traction again, Hillary Clinton's website removed the promise to 'believe' all sexual assault survivors.

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

Of course you have go Europe to find this out (and I'll provide sources for this information, even before being required to do so :rolleyes:)...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html

And let me guess... you heard it here first... obviously.

Oh come in and provide a click able link.

The daily mail is gutter press that is less accurate than the onion.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh come in and provide a click able link.

The daily mail is gutter press that is less accurate than the onion.

So you don't believe any of it?

Perhaps you might believe this...
http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assault-pledge-after-rape-claims-against-bill-resurface/

All hail the sexual abuse enabler, because none of that matters, because... well... just because she isn’t Trump. That's what you're all telling me, right?

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Media go with the stories that get the most clicks and views (and by extension - Revenue).

I remain unconvinced that there is any kind of mass media manipulation going on against Trump , they are just going where the money is..

Sadly what's interesting to the average person is the scandalous, the salacious and the vapid..(Why else would the f**king Kardashians even be a thing!!).

So for the media, Trumps missteps , his random outbursts , his choice of potentially dubious support team etc. are always going to be the more attractive story compared to "Trump gives boring normal politician speech" or even "Hillary Clinton continues to do what Hillary Clinton has done for decades"

It is without question a damning indictment of modern society (and the media for pandering to it) but it is the place we find ourselves in.

John Oliver did a piece on his show a few weeks ago about the decline in "proper" journalism , in particular the loss of local print media in the US which I think tells an important story as to why we have the media we have (and it's not about corruption or bias)

There used to be a law in the US that required stations to broadcast a certain amount of news that was in the public interest in order for a station to get a license. It was I think called the fairness doctrine and was enforced by the FCC. The doctrine was abolished in 1987 by a 4-0 FCC vote. An attempt to pre-empt by congress the FCC was veotoed by Regan that same year while a few years later Bush blocked another attempt.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Ah, it is only me then that needs to provide sources to back up statements made. Just as I suspected. And you got nothing to back up what you said... also as expected.

People shouldn't have to waste their time providing links to well known information. Will we have to provide links to the results the day after Clinton destroys Trump in the election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/08/report-roger-ailes-advising-donald-trump-ahead-of-debates-227060
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-ailes-advising-trump-debates-formal-campaign-role/story?id=41429274

Did you know Hillary stated that all alleged rape victims should be believed. She even had it on her website. Then someone, not a brave member of the biased media mind you, had the unmitigated gall to ask her at a town hall meeting that if all alleged rape victims should be believed, what about your husband's accusers? And now that a return of allegations that Bill raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary threatened her to keep quiet might get some traction again, Hillary Clinton's website removed the promise to 'believe' all sexual assault survivors.

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

Of course you have go Europe to find this out (and I'll provide sources for this information, even before being required to do so :rolleyes:)...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html

And let me guess... you heard it here first... obviously.

I refuse to give web traffic to the Daily Mail. I see no wrong with a woman defending her husband against rape allegations.

KingBrian2

Amerika wrote: »

Ah, it is only me then that needs to provide sources to back up statements made. Just as I suspected. And you got nothing to back up what you said... also as expected.


Did you know Hillary stated that all alleged rape victims should be believed. She even had it on her website. Then someone, not a brave member of the biased media mind you, had the unmitigated gall to ask her at a town hall meeting that if all alleged rape victims should be believed, what about your husband's accusers? And now that a return of allegations that Bill raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary threatened her to keep quiet might get some traction again, Hillary Clinton's website removed the promise to 'believe' all sexual assault survivors.

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

Of course you have go Europe to find this out (and I'll provide sources for this information, even before being required to do so :rolleyes:)...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html

And let me guess... you heard it here first... obviously.

That is going too far from Hillary, this is never reported as she is expecting to get all women who have been victims of sexual abuse now to vote for her after saying this.