2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Byrthnoth]

fucking lol

I actually clicked the link to see if AOL had a satire branch.

[Day]

A huge segment of the US Armed Forces are Conservatives/Republicans, and he has the (R) next to his name.

Seems pretty simple to me.

The (R) is just for alphabetical order idiot

[Tyche]

Can Hillary not do a simple interview without her coaching team?

Given the date, that was probably for a UN speech. Regardless, it's acceptable to use a teleprompter, but an earpiece is going too far? Media is reaching hard to make this race competitive. The bar is so fucking low for Donald Trump that he could shit on military generals and everyone is like "eh, it's Trump", but Hillary uses an earpiece at a speech, and it's a fucking story? I guess that's one way to run a campaign, set the bar incredibly fucking low in the primary so you can continue to fuck up all campaign, then, at the last second, do one thing with some modicum of bipartisan respect, and voila, the media treats you like you just walked on water.

[Day]

Pretty entertaining watching the hilldogs go from such over confidence and constant shit talking to reaching for excuses like "main stream media" lmao you sound like the right. You guys really think the media has been more unfair to Hillary this election? I must be missing something, every where I turn Trump is being mocked, perhaps I'm not consuming the mainiest of streamiest of media.

[Day]

Not that he doesn't deserve mocking... just saying.

[Zealot]

Yeah I don't get it either. Media is almost all unified against Trump.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Dimmauk]

I do alot of driving around all day, once sports radio gets stale, I change to conservative radio for the lulz. Beck, Rush, Hannity in that order. Every old customer I visit also watches FOX news all fucking day too. All they do is attack Hillary all day.

Does showing clips of Trump saying stupid shit = being biased?

Btw, there is no liberal radio. Or is NPR/TPR liberal?

[Day]

Well you deserve exactly that for driving around listening to beck, hannity and fox and shit, what do you expect?

[Quicklet]

My understanding is that any media outlet that doesn't support Trump or cover him favorably is, by definition, liberal.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/kat...m-in-75-years/

The Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary, therefore it is a liberal paper. Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, and Mitt Romney? All liberals. Polls that show Trump winning by a lot are not liberal, but if they later show Hillary ahead then they become liberal.

[Tyche]

Pretty entertaining watching the hilldogs go from such over confidence and constant shit talking to reaching for excuses like "main stream media" lmao you sound like the right. You guys really think the media has been more unfair to Hillary this election? I must be missing something, every where I turn Trump is being mocked, perhaps I'm not consuming the mainiest of streamiest of media.

It's not that. It's that the Trump coverage is low hanging fruit. Yes, Trump is being mocked, but the things he is saying, if they were said by any politician or even Hillary, it would be front page news. Hillary coverage however, is nuanced and complex. Quid pro quo that doesn't exist. The AP wrote an entire story of nothing, essentially saying "well, even though we didn't find anything, it does cast a shadow on a candidate that no one sees as trustworthy.". Remember that south park episode where cartman makes shit up, and follows with "hey, im just asking questions". That's been largely the Clinton coverage. Trump gets destroyed in the media, but the time spent covering stories vs the severity of actions of that story are against Clinton. Trump is graded on a curve. Fuck, there is very clear evidence supporting Trump doing what Hillary was accused of doing with the Clinton foundation. But all we hear about is the shadiness of the Clinton foundation with no clear evidence dug up by several media outlets that covered the story. Trump bought a fucking prosecutor to avoid charges. Pretty clearly. No one really cares. Trump's egregious transgressions are meh to the media. Hillary's non-transgressions become week long stories by a multitude of media outlets.

[Dimmauk]

Someone called out Greg Abbott about being bought out by Trump over Trump U when he was AG of Texas, and people were outraged they they attacked a handicapped man. WTF?

[Quicklet]

Johnson's follow up after his Aleppo comments this morning is not much better.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...79183097393152

[Day]

Seems to me the media reports both and the people only care about one. Obviously you know about the Trump stuff somehow, but like you said, no one cares. I find it hard to blame the media on this, the media is so fckin biased depending on what channel you're watching I don't even know that it's worth discussing. None of what you just said applies if you go watch MSNBC but yeah if you are listening to Fox then that's what you are going to hear. Obviously I would prefer facts presented and people make their own opinion but that's not what we have any more. Trump saying stupid shit is nothing new, he's been saying the dumbest of shit all along and yet here we are with him as the primary repub candidate.

[Quicklet]

The problem is that media is incentivized for various reasons to try to be "fair" to both candidates and normalize them even when the facts don't warrant it. Trump has said dozens of things that would be disqualifying of any other candidate for office, but media often lets him off the hook with a "well I don't remember saying that" or just flat out lying like he did last night. On the other side, Hillary has plenty of flaws but the media has spent a disproportionate amount of time continuing the email story even though there hasn't been much new information of substance in the past few weeks. Without the email "scandal" being continued, they're left with a narrative of "boring, serious candidate vs unstable demagogue", which is worse for both ratings and their own self-perception of "fairness".

Normalizing Trump is bad journalism and does a disservice to voters who might not have the time or energy to pay attention to the campaign on a constant basis. It gives Trump a license to lie based on whoever he's pandering to with little danger of being fact-checked in real time.

[archibaldcrane]

Uh, so about Colin Powell telling Hillary about how to get around State Dept procedures for security...here's an extensive email he sent her 3 days after Obama was inaugurated.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...urity-measures

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell sent Hillary Clinton a detailed explanation of how he got around some of the State Department's security measures in a 2009 email that has become wrapped up in the investigation of Clinton's use of private email server while leading State.

Read the whole thing.

[archibaldcrane]

HA!

And then when the NY times tried to correct him, they claimed that Aleppo was the "de facto capital of ISIS" lol.

It's dangerous to go alone, take this rudimentary knowledge of geopolitics.

[Ragnus]

This is clearly the patriarchy's fault for fact checking Hillary more than Trump.

[Byrthnoth]

Uh, so about Colin Powell telling Hillary about how to get around State Dept procedures for security...here's an extensive email he sent her 3 days after Obama was inaugurated.

Where the fuck was this e-mail 1.5 years ago? I swear Hillary fights with her arms tied behind her back. This is the kind of stuff that you leak when people give you shit.

Anyhoo, I'd like the people appalled by Hillary's understanding of digital security to read the second paragraph of Colin's e-mail and understand that she's likely ahead of the curve:

Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals and could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

[Mertron]

i sympathize with Johnson, i only know about aleppo because right before othello dies he says he was there once

[kisada]

what tyche and quicklet said.

the media spent a good 2.5 weeks looking at the email/foundation shit for evidence of wrongdoing (finding nothing). conversely they pretty much has spent a scant 1-2 days on trump ACTUALLY paying off a fucking florida AG, and ACTUALLY talking about quid pro quo. it's disingenuous journalism at best, completely dishonest at worst and it makes it harder and harder for people, who don't know any better, to make proper judgments while at the same time enabling trump to get away with murder.