2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

20Cent

Powerful statement by John McCain.
http://fortune.com/2016/08/01/read-john-mccain-trump-khan/?xid=for_fb_sh

Here is how Captain Khan died.

When a suicide bomber accelerated his vehicle toward a facility with hundreds of American soldiers, Captain Khan ordered his subordinates away from the danger.

Then he ran toward it.

The suicide bomber, striking prematurely, claimed the life of Captain Khan—and Captain Khan, through his selfless action and sacrifice, saved the lives of hundreds of his brothers and sisters.

Mr Freeze

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump better be careful what he says about Buffett, who is highly respected in the Mid-West (many states that normally vote Republican).

If he attacked the Kahns, I can't see him holding back with Buffett. His skin is far too thin.

Christy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Is Trump laying the ground-work for being able to say that he didn't lose the Election but that it was "taken away from him"?

Because he never loses right?

It is also part of the fantasy he draws his voters into. He did it for the primarys as well saying the system was stacked against him.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wait. Wtf? Trump has a "veterans affairs advisor"?

The train wreck of trumps relationship with the military must be the stuff of nightmares for any "veterans affairs advisor". Could it get any worse?

The VFW are demanding trump make a public apology. He's got twenty million veterans disgusted by him right now.

Remember after the GOP convention, with the media outrage and political firestorm when Hillary Clinton treated the mother of a slain hero, who gave his life to save our ambassador, like dirt and called a liar after she spoke at the convention? I don't... like everyone else in the world.

Amerika

Sand wrote: »

Why is it a problem to be biased against the worst U.S. presidential candidate in living memory?

There's been a real problem in the media where they attempt to define 'balance' by equating reasonable, thoughtful, evidenced points of view with some lunatic with nothing but insults and conspiracy theories. I think with Trump its hit a wall - there is no way to 'balance' the debate because Trump is so poor. Rather than complaining about why the media cannot find a way to present Trump in a reasonable light, maybe its worth questioning why Trump is unable to offer the media any basis to do so. In the last week alone he is insulting the mother of a dead war hero *and* calling for hackers to attack his rival...

How do you spin that as being a reasonable, thoughtful, evidenced point of view? I am sure the Republican strategists are pulling their hair out trying to think of a way before Trump needlessly insults another voter so let them know.

Are you referring to Trump or Clinton? I think a good argument can be made that both candidates fit that description. A blowhard liar or a corrupt liar are our choices.

When we follow the money, the Clinton Foundation stinks to high heaven while she was Secretary of State. Where, oh where, did all our uranium go? And where is all that investigative reporting? Sitting back, wringing their hands, waiting for the next outrageous thing out of Trump's mouth, methinks.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This whole left-leaning so-called disadvantage for Trump is absolute nonsense. Trump has been expertly playing the news media for a year now to his total advantage (to stay in the spotlight more than his competitors), while at the same time claiming to be a victim of the left-leaning media. What he has been doing was on page 56 of this Deal's playbook: say "outrageous" and "sensationalist" things and the media will flock to keep you in the spotlight. And whenever there is not a Trump report today about his latest "outrageous" thing said, tomorrow Trump will say something "outrageous" to gain media attention, while at the same time shedding big crocodile tears about the left-media. In summary, Trump is waging the biggest con of the 21st Century to win the 2016 presidency.

Here's a little experiement for you... Do you have Apple's Siri? "Hillary's America" is now the top grossing documentary of the year, here. Ask Siri about the movie "Hillary's America." Then ask Siri about any other movie. When done, get back to me.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Also known as the CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/BBC/NPR/PBS phenomenon. Just to be fair when talking about TV news perceptions.

You play to your audience. And challenges to the reporting of the Left leaning biased reporting and disingenuous accusations is few and far between IMO.

That chart says nothing about the bias of TV networks. It shows the ideological leanings of its viewers. Nobody could seriously claim the Economist to be as left wing as the Huffington Post or to the left of MSNBC, I'm not sure anyone could even seriously claim to be biased towards the left at all. It is somewhat telling that Fox News is further to the right than most other major news networks are to the left though.

oscarBravo

These op-eds sum up my genuine belief about Donald Trump: he is genuinely unhinged. I'm not using the term in a blithely disparaging way; I think the man is, quite simply, psychologically unfit for the job.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

That chart says nothing about the bias of TV networks. It shows the ideological leanings of its viewers. Nobody could seriously claim the Economist to be as left wing as the Huffington Post or to the left of MSNBC, I'm not sure anyone could even seriously claim to be biased towards the left at all. It is somewhat telling that Fox News is further to the right than most other major news networks are to the left though.

Aren't those on the Right mostly Fox News viewers? Aren't those on the Left mostly MSNBC viewers? As I said they play to their audience. People tend to tune into news programs that support their political ideals.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

Aren't those on the Right mostly Fox News viewers? Aren't those on the Left mostly MSNBC viewers? As I said they play to their audience. People tend to tune into news programs that support their political ideals.

Any chart which thinks that The Economist occupies the same ideological niche as Buzzfeed is completely worthless IMO.

InTheTrees

It had to happen...

Trump decides to attack the parents of a dead war hereo and now naturally enough people are starting to ask questions about how he managed to get out of being drafted for vietnam. Especially since he attended a "military academy".

It turns out he lied that it was because of a high draft number (everyone was assigned a number and then called up according to number), and that he got a medical exemption due to a "heel spur".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/how-donald-trump-avoided-the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/

ancapailldorcha

I have many problems with Trump but the idea of conscription is an abomination. He was perfectly right to do everything he could to avoid it.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

"Hillary's America" is now the top grossing documentary of the year, here.

The trailer for which refers to the Clintons as "depraved crooks" and the DNC as the "party of corruption".

That's not a documentary; it's a polemic.

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have many problems with Trump but the idea of conscription is an abomination. He was perfectly right to do everything he could to avoid it.

Fine, if he was honest about his draft-dodging and attempted to spin it as a principled stand. Draft-dodging and lying about it is just cowardice.

Madd Finn

If Trump wins, he will be the oldest president ever on his first inauguration day. So far Ronnie Reagan is the oldest, having been inaugurated for the first time a few weeks short of his 70th birthday. Trump turned 70 earlier this summer.

If Hilary wins, not only will she be the first woman president, she will also become the second oldest first-time inauguree ever and only the second 69-er (hur hur hur) after Reagan.

So much for the millennial generation.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine, if he was honest about his draft-dodging and attempted to spin it as a principled stand. Draft-dodging and lying about it is just cowardice.

Wanting to avoid a situation with a high probability of being murdered or tortured is cowardice?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

The trailer for which refers to the Clintons as "depraved crooks" and the DNC as the "party of corruption".

That's not a documentary; it's a polemic.

Those might be accurate descriptions from the evidence provided, as I’ve read, but have not seen the movie yet myself. You can dislike the movie and the premise all you want, but can you deny the facts within? Or is it shoot first, ask questions later?

http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/evidence/

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Here's a little experiement for you... Do you have Apple's Siri? "Hillary's America" is now the top grossing documentary of the year, here. Ask Siri about the movie "Hillary's America." Then ask Siri about any other movie. When done, get back to me.

Tried that got links to reviews and the trailer.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Tried that got links to reviews and the trailer.

Thanks... That’s good to know. Then the public outcry and backlash against Apple’s censoring for Hillary must have worked to force the company to change course.

https://twitter.com/bakedalaska/status/760270309702246400

Peist2007

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Is Trump laying the ground-work for being able to say that he didn't lose the Election but that it was "taken away from him"?

Because he never loses right?

He doesnt need to lay much groundwork. The DNC were exposed rigging their own election for Hillary only last week.

Amerika

Watch the US media treatment of parents of slain heroes in the war against terrorism, between the GOP and the DNC conventions, in this video. And keep telling yourself there is no media bias... Right!

http://heatst.com/politics/benghazi-mom-khan-trump-video/

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Aren't those on the Right mostly Fox News viewers? Aren't those on the Left mostly MSNBC viewers? As I said they play to their audience. People tend to tune into news programs that support their political ideals.

Why do so many left wing people read the Economist then? Maybe left wing people prefer to get their news from news organisations that provide high quality content. Do you have any proof that networks like ABC, CBS or CNN are actually biased for instance?

Peist2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why do so many left wing people read the Economist then? Maybe left wing people prefer to get their news from news organisations that provide high quality content. Do you have any proof that networks like ABC, CBS or CNN are actually biased for instance?

The focus on Trump/Putin when the DNC corruption was exposed last week should tell you all you need to know re bias.

marienbad

Peist2007 wrote: »

The focus on Trump/Putin when the DNC corruption was exposed last week should tell you all you need to know re bias.

should they have ignored Trump/Putin ?

Suryavarman

Peist2007 wrote: »

The focus on Trump/Putin when the DNC corruption was exposed last week should tell you all you need to know re bias.

What does it tell me when a news organisation decides to cover a major party nominee for the presidency asking a foreign head of state to interfere in the US presidential election?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why do so many left wing people read the Economist then? Maybe left wing people prefer to get their news from news organisations that provide high quality content. Do you have any proof that networks like ABC, CBS or CNN are actually biased for instance?

Regarding the Economist… You need to understand the differences of the UK and the USA when applying monikers like Left, Center, and Right. Much of what is considered Center in the UK is viewed as Progressive/ Left here in the states. Even what many would consider Right in the UK would be considered Left of Center here in the States. I think that is something that is often overlooked by Europeans when discussing US Politics.

Many of their economic issues, though usually conservative in nature, do often lean to the Left with approvals of privatization government assets, support Keynesian policies, climate change and cap-and-trade schemes or a carbon tax, as examples. I don’t think there could be any argument that they are Liberal when it comes to social issues. And regarding foreign policy, they believe a liberal democracy is the best form of government.

I have examples of journalist admitting there is a liberal bias in the media for you. But I doubt anything matters much, and there is no proof that will suffice in the opinions the majority here regarding the fact that a liberal media bias exists. Probably the best thing to do is to quote Mark Twain: “Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-one

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-two

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

What does it tell me when a news organisation decides to cover a major party nominee for the presidency asking a foreign head of state to interfere in the US presidential election?

When did this happen?

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Wanting to avoid a situation with a high probability of being murdered or tortured is cowardice?

Nope. Lying about it is cowardice. There were plenty of conscientious objectors, and they paid a price for their honesty. Both those concepts - "paying the price" and "honesty" are alien concepts for Trump.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks... That’s good to know. Then the public outcry and backlash against Apple’s censoring for Hillary must have worked to force the company to change course.

...or, more likely, the hype attributed to that one single tweet was completely exaggerated. I wonder why anyone would want to do that.

From what I've been able to gather, Siri will tell you showtimes of movies that are showing near you later today. This person asked about the movie, was told that it wasn't showing near him that day, and he concocted a conspiracy theory.

BoJack Horseman

Peist2007 wrote: »

The focus on Trump/Putin when the DNC corruption was exposed last week should tell you all you need to know re bias.

Seemed odd alright....

The dark heart of the democratic party was laid bare for all to see but the media worked very hard to make it a story about Vladi pulling strings.