2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal wrote: »

hes going to keep going at it. Ya mad? "Crooked FBI" "rigged election" rabble rabble etc. - facts haven't stopped him before why would they now?

When I say lose it, that seemed to indicate i was suggesting he had it before.

Yeah and James comey is back off the Christmas card list from trump tower.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

When I say lose it, that seemed to indicate i was suggesting he had it before.

Yeah and James comey is back off the Christmas card list from trump tower.

The Comey love in the media is such a soap opera too. When the investigation started he GOP praised him as the fairest, most thorough, honest, stalwart etc etc man ever. Then he came out with a decision they didn't like. Overnight traitor. Then the liberal media praised him. Then the letter came out. Snake! Then the GOP sang Baby Come Back...

Overheal wrote: »

hes going to keep going at it. Ya mad? "Crooked FBI" "rigged election" rabble rabble etc. - facts haven't stopped him before why would they now?

Drudge front page has Trump quote - "She's protected by rigged system"

You could write it

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Was Bush not elected in a fixed election in Florida. Nixon was also crooked and was elected. So their are precedents not that I agree with Trump claiming their is rigging. The Democrats also claim their is electoral fraud in previous elections so this is hardly a new development.

My point was that Trump talked about voter fraud, polls are wrong, the whole system is rigged and against him - then the polls go positive, Comey steps in with the investigation and suddenly he says ' maybe it's not as rigged as we thought' everything is rosey and then as soon as Comey says they've found nothing, he's right back to the system is rigged again. Predictable...

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is this a remark or more.
How on earth could they look at 650,000 emails in a few days. So this new batch of emails is given all clear.
I think pressure has been put on Comey from the top. The timing is crazy.
It's not realistic to say that new investigation took few days .

Idk. Math? Depends on how many emails you look through and what you're looking for. You could systematically eliminate duplication of emails obtained previously from other sources. You can also have agents filter appropriately for material you're looking for (e.g. Communications between specific parties)

The bad assumption here is that of all 650k emails on her device, that all 650k had any bearing on the HRC investigation. Thousands could have been Amazon spam for instance.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

In fairness there's sample evidence for suspicion.

And suspicion isn't the same as guilt. I mean Godspeed to investigations against her but until they have the right goods to bring charges against her, she's innocent until proven guilty. Common sense exposed to months, years of media reporting and biased punditry on the issue leads most of us to think that yeah there's something there but that doesn't indict her. It just doesn't.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Fair enough but the validity of the election is put at stake when the coverage of one party is shown to overwhelmingly side with one party over the other. Media Bias is almost as bad as voter fraud/suppression or gerrymandering electoral districts. The people are getting a misinformed picture of the candidates.

That's hardly a fair assessment. Trump took advantage of literally billions of dollars of free media coverage by going on interviews and picking up the phone. Conservatives know what stations to watch and so do liberals if they want aligned coverage.

The simple truth is the reason most coverage of Trump is negative is because so much of what he is is negative. Just look at politicians he's called liars or that have disavowed him that are now stumping for him for political gain. Quite a farce. His coverage has been more than fair tbh and most days of the week you can usually catch a livestream or two of one of the rallies he puts on. If Bernie had that kind of exposure this would have been a very different race.

Overheal wrote: »

That's hardly a fair assessment. Trump took advantage of literally billions of dollars of free media coverage by going on interviews and picking up the phone. Conservatives know what stations to watch and so do liberals if they want aligned coverage.

The simple truth is the reason most coverage of Trump is negative is because so much of what he is is negative. Just look at politicians he's called liars or that have disavowed him that are now stumping for him for political gain. Quite a farce. His coverage has been more than fair tbh and most days of the week you can usually catch a livestream or two of one of the rallies he puts on. If Bernie had that kind of exposure this would have been a very different race.

Yeah, no doubt there will be many books and thesis' written about the role the media played in this election that will focus on how they built him up - he was box office and the media milked it. He said outrageous stuff and the media lapped it up. Anytime a mic was put in front of him, he was guaranteed to come out with something mad that they could run with as a headline story.

Ultimately, the reason why he can point to the media negatively reporting on him is that the regular mind-farts, the racist rhetoric and insulting anyone who disagreed with him made it too easy - he brought it on himself and there's no point in moaning about the media when he actively played them....

Obama sat down with Maher this weekend finally and they talked among other topics about the role of the media. I think it's worth a look, one crux of the discussion was largely that a profit driven economy is great for production, but has had some very unintended consequences in certain realms: like healthcare, prisons and law enforcement, and the media. Have to say i fully agree, capitalism is great until the profit motive becomes more important than these essential motives of truth and information, of justice and safety, and health and welfare. Not before another generation passes do I think we'll see a well mixed society in this regard but we have to start thinking about it.



On another subject entirely I haven't had time to really form my own viewpoint on Haiti as I haven't had time to digest information and process spin either way on it. I'm starting with this write up from slate as I've found them to be a reasonable sources so far but if anyone wants to chime in I'll be chewing it over

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/09/the_truth_about_the_clintons_and_haiti.html

gosplan wrote: »

So they denied it being an organised terrorist incident, instead claiming it was a kind of 'mass hysteria' thing inspired by the release of some film?

Pretty much. The attack came during the 2012 election season, 2 months before the vote, and a big part of Obamas platform was keeping Americans safe.

TheOven wrote: »

Trump has to be kept away from twitter by his campaign. Yet everyone else is meant to trust him to be in charge of a country.

There's an unintentionally funny interview with Kellyanne Conway during the week where the way she talked about trying to manage Trump and his phone was like a mother trying to manage her kids (she has a lot) without kicking off a tantrum. Something about suggesting "here's some interesting things to tweet about today" instead of telling him not to tweet as he'd end up throwing a strop. Not sure I've explained it well but if you look around on the net you'll find it...