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

[Day]

i still dont buy it. you need to define "media" not every channel reports the same shit. fox harped on benghazi for like 4 years it seemed like I mean idk, msnbc isn't over there going on and on about the emails that I know of, maybe im wrong i dont watch any of that shit so my "media" is all interwebs crap like BG forums and reddit where Trump is for the most part bashed in every piece of "media" I see.

[Gryffes]

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.

It isn't really setting the bar low, it's pretty simple.
If the race is a blowout and over then they have nothing to talk about and viewers will turn off their TVs and they lose ad money.
The tighter and "more exciting" the race is the more viewers, the better ratings, more ad money.

News isn't really news anymore, it's just sensationalist clickbait on your TV.

[Melena]

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



Read the whole thing.

I'm sure we can expect Republicans to spend 2 years and billions of dollars investigating Powell now. /sarcasm

[kisada]

god damn lol

anthony bourdain tweets at trump about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assa..._Boris_Nemtsov

fan replies:
David Brantly ‏@brantlyd
@Bourdain Please don't dabble in politics. I really respect you and your shows. I don't want to lose that.

bourdain replies:
Anthony Bourdain
‏@Bourdain
@brantlyd when a candidate repeatedly expresses admiration for a man who killed a guest on my show I think it’s worth mentioning

[Tyche]

i still dont buy it. you need to define "media" not every channel reports the same shit. fox harped on benghazi for like 4 years it seemed like I mean idk, msnbc isn't over there going on and on about the emails that I know of, maybe im wrong i dont watch any of that shit so my "media" is all interwebs crap like BG forums and reddit where Trump is for the most part bashed in every piece of "media" I see.

Well, the AP, an entity about as apolitical as you can possibly be, is the organization responsible for the absolutely wreckless investigation into the Clinton Foundation story. Then, their story was further investigated by the NYT, and again, sophomoric journalism produced an article that a 101 journalism professor would be embarrassed to read. And the NYT isn't exactly a bastion of conservative talking points. Even apolitical and liberal leaning news organizations are trying to make a Clinton story that simply isn't there.

[Tyche]

This isn't really new to the Clintons. For the last quarter century, even the most menial of allegations results in sweeping investigations, and thusly, the Clintons are presumed to be this sly, untrustworthy, and evasive political power family even if the allegations have no merit. That's what 25 years under a GOP microscope will do to you.

[kisada]

going on further about the AP: the AP tweeted out that SOS clinton met 154 times with people, over half of them being donors. she, in fact, had over 1700 meetings.

when actually confronted about it, the AP said they were wrong but weren't gonna delete their tweet. https://thinkprogress.org/ap-executi...297#.jv7ciji8r

so, yeah, by mainstream media i absolutely do mean mainstream media. if you're cnn/ap/reuters etc. you can't fucking engage in sensationalist "journalism" and call it journalism.

[Day]

Yet when I go to AP right now here are the headlines I see:

CLINTON BLASTS TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON MILITARY GENERALS, PUTIN

OBAMA: AMERICANS WILL REJECT TRUMP'S 'WACKY' IDEAS

ELECTION OFFICIALS PUSH BACK ON TRUMP'S "RIGGED" ALLEGATIONS

CNN currently:

Spoiler: show

Reuters:

Spoiler: show

I see bias but not in the direction you guys are claiming, please advise.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm sure we can expect Republicans to spend 2 years and billions of dollars investigating Powell now. /sarcasm

I'm just waiting for Krandor to tell me which gulag Colin Powell should be in.

[archibaldcrane]

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.

The problem is that there's nothing to investigate with Trump and Bondi. It's so obviously a payoff to avoid prosecution, which is something Trump already basically told the American public he does on a regular basis as a businessman for decades, that there's almost nothing to discuss.

The report would be like "Trump buys attorneys general as part of avoiding prosecution, barely even denies it" and that's the end of it. You can't keep cranking up the intrigue or outrage because it's so blantantly out of bounds on the surface.

[Andalusian girls]

I assume most of the blax in the military are democrats though.

surprised we got stuck with anecdotes when fivethirtyeight literally just ran a story on this

[there are] 22 million veterans living in the United States, a powerful demographic group that trends Republican. There are also 1.3 million active-duty military members, 1.8 million dependents and nearly 741,000 U.S. civilian direct hires. Active-duty military service members are not allowed to speak on the record to the press about their political affiliations, but a July survey by Military Times (described as unscientific, since respondents opt in) found that they preferred Trump to Clinton 2 to 1, though the majority dislike both candidates (61 percent in Trump’s case and 82 percent in Clinton’s).

An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll in mid-August found that Trump was leading Clinton by 10 points — 51 to 41 percent — in military households, even after he angered many veterans groups by feuding with a Gold Star Muslim family that had lost a son in Iraq. (Blacks and Latinos in military households chose Clinton over Trump, though by lower margins than among the general population.) A Fox News poll in early August found Trump ahead of Clinton by 14 points in early August among veterans. But that lead is smaller than those of previous Republican candidates, possibly because of Trump’s remarks about the Gold Star family and his criticism of military interventions. At this point in the cycle, John McCain had a 22-point lead among veterans in 2008, and Mitt Romney was up 24 points in 2012.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ary-vote-have/

[Andalusian girls]

HA!

in his defense, he is a profoundly stupid man

[thetruepandagod]

well I don't remember

This was quite literally Hillary's defense against the FBI inquiry.

disproportionate amount of time continuing the email story even though there hasn't been much new information of substance in the past few weeks.

There was also a big drop of new emails over labor day weekend, from the FBI themselves. Which showed that Hillary had 13 different blackberries and that she had her aides literally destroy them with a hammer office space style.

Just another show of of incompetence and lies.

[archibaldcrane]

How should you safely dispose of an old device from a top state official when she's moving to a new one?

[Gryffes]

Hillarys camp now denying she wore an earpiece last night, despite pretty obvious photo and video evidence that she did.

How stupid can you be.

[thetruepandagod]

How should you safely dispose of an old device from a top state official when she's moving to a new one?

Apparently in a more thorough manner..
https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actual...phones-better/

[Tyrath]

It's a hearing aid cuz she old and deaf bruh.


But seriously, she does a lot of this shit to herself.

[archibaldcrane]

They're saying it's just a weird reflection of light - there's got to be other shots of her ear over that hour that would make this clear, right?

[Olo401]

It's a hearing aid

It's pretty obvious that it's a hearing aid too. Earpieces have a cord or antenna because they have to send/receive a audio signal from another source rather than just amplify sound.

[Dimmauk]

Hillarys camp now denying she wore an earpiece last night, despite pretty obvious photo and video evidence that she did.

How stupid can you be.

She got one of them new iPhones.