It's not Clinton's fault that Trump has been asked exactly once about his birther claims. He's been asked exactly once about the Bondi donation, zero times about his mob ties, and I have yet to hear him explain how he got away with it in Texas. Nobody is asking about his bankruptcies, 3500 lawsuits he's been involved in. Many federal investigations. Who has asked him about raping Ivana when they were married?
Not only did Trump Foundation donate to Bondi while she was running for reelection as Florida's attorney general while looking into charges for fraud from Trump university. What hasn't even been discussed is Trump's original explanation. If everything was on the up and up, why did they insist they donated the money to the organization they listed on his irs paperwork? They wrote "Justice for All" on the paperwork which is a charity in Utah trying to stop abortions. They flatly deny receiving $25,000. You know who did receive that much? Pam Bondi's reelection captain called And Justice For All. Pam Bondi stated she decided not proceed with the lawsuit as no complaints about the university were bright forward except the original one. She clearly lied as there are 8491 documents in her office (obtained by journalists) outlining literally dozens of complaints and she knew about them.
It's mind blowing how that's Clinton's fault
Well you are right that it isn't Clinton's "fault"--but I do think she needs to be a bit more responsive to this reality. The GOP made the mistake of treating Trump with kid gloves and hoping he would go away, and that didn't turn out so well. I just think she (and/or her surrogates) need to be on the offensive a bit more here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
^^I honestly don't see what could hurt him in the tax returns
Well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
unless he is deep into the Russians.
There is that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Otherwise the fact he pays almost no tax won't hurt him,
It might a little bit... plus I don't think he wants the IRS to have a crowdsourced audit at it's disposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
neither will the fact he isn't as rich as he says (most people don't believe him on this one anyway),
Depends on the magnitude of his exaggeration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
or that he stiffs charity when he says he gives big. His supporters don't care, and really most other people won't bat an eye at that stuff because they already think very little of him.
The one thing I've been thinking is that Trumps bread and butter has been real estate development... specifically real estate development in New York City. I halfway wonder if his financial records would indicate payouts to the mafia.
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Well you are right that it isn't Clinton's "fault"--but I do think she needs to be a bit more responsive to this reality. The GOP made the mistake of treating Trump with kid gloves and hoping he would go away, and that didn't turn out so well. I just think she (and/or her surrogates) need to be on the offensive a bit more here.
When she lists his history of racism and bigotry, Trump inexplicably calls her a bigot with no supporting evidence, and the newspapers run with "Clinton and Trump call each other bigots". She calls out his idiocy in policy and the papers follow with "Trump and Clinton argue about immigration"
There's no win here until this kind of reporting stops
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Safe to say the Dallas Morning News is not a fan. Ouch.
Quote:
His isolationist prescriptions put sound bites over sound policy: Invite the Russians into our elections. Bomb the Middle East into dust. Withdraw from NATO.
It's not easy to offer a shorthand list of such tenets, since Trump flips from one side to the other, issue after issue, sometimes within a single news cycle. Regardless, his ideas are so far from Republicanism that they have spawned a new description: Trumpism.
We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory.
Trump doesn't reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn't reflect the GOP of the future.
Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote.
Trump accuses the Dallas Morning News of bias against him.
The Dallas Morning News exaggerates claims and/or makes things up against Hillary while actively ignoring Trump's daily scandals in order to look more "balanced," just like every other media outlet that's been accused of bias against Trump.
Counter-intuitively, I think it is actually in the Dems best interest to have the media portray this as a close race, this early on in the cycle. I fear that declarations of a runaway win for Clinton may leave dissatisfied voters (of which there are many) at home which might give Trump a chance.
It has been a fascinating campaign. I think Clinton continues to campaign for the republican vote. She can keep hammering away at how incompetent Trump is. How little he represents historical Republicanism. Once the debates are over and we are closer to November, I think the gap will widen and perhaps then Trump will dig his own grave by saying more crazy stuff and driving away any semblance of a Republican/Independent base.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
When she lists his history of racism and bigotry, Trump inexplicably calls her a bigot with no supporting evidence, and the newspapers run with "Clinton and Trump call each other bigots". She calls out his idiocy in policy and the papers follow with "Trump and Clinton argue about immigration"
There's no win here until this kind of reporting stops
It's one of the clearest illustrations of how financial interest has supplanted journalistic integrity in North American major media.
For profit media is killing democracy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
It's one of the clearest illustrations of how financial interest has supplanted journalistic integrity in North American major media.
For profit media is killing democracy.
I disagree. Asking the tough questions would get ratings. It's a combination of being scared and lazy. They're scared of lawsuits and blow back from reporting more harsh information from one side than another. It's all about appearing "fair and balanced" and is admittedly hard to go after Trump and not to find something to go after Clinton the same way. It's also lazy
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I disagree. Asking the tough questions would get ratings. It's a combination of being scared and lazy. They're scared of lawsuits and blow back from reporting more harsh information from one side than another. It's all about appearing "fair and balanced" and is admittedly hard to go after Trump and not to find something to go after Clinton the same way. It's also lazy
I think if you think it's laziness then you don't really get it.
The reason trump has been in the news so often and without followup is because it's lazy and easy and drives ratings.
Running a long form investigation into Trump corruption is the opposite of lazy, it is labour intensive and to do it right requires qualified journalists with experience.
Getting some model school dropout to introduce the latest poorly shot and heavily edited sound byte is the ultimate return on investment. The news is crowdsourced, you underpay some tech lackey to edit the video appropriately and then you pay the model school dropout to introduce it and if they won't, you can their ass and hire the next one in line.
They aren't scared of lawsuits and blowback, they are scared of industry regulation and losing access. Pissing off politicians by attacking them for their corruption is a good way of losing access to said politicians and perhaps even having them defend themselves with regulatory policies against the industry.
Look at how often trump sues journalists, the new york times doesn't care if Trump sues them, but they care that they continue to have access to top members of the GOP establishment. But, to get that kind of access you have to pay to play.
I think if you think it's laziness then you don't really get it.
The reason trump has been in the news so often and without followup is because it's lazy and easy and drives ratings.
Running a long form investigation into Trump corruption is the opposite of lazy, it is labour intensive and to do it right requires qualified journalists with experience.
Getting some model school dropout to introduce the latest poorly shot and heavily edited sound byte is the ultimate return on investment. The news is crowdsourced, you underpay some tech lackey to edit the video appropriately and then you pay the model school dropout to introduce it and if they won't, you can their ass and hire the next one in line.
They aren't scared of lawsuits and blowback, they are scared of industry regulation and losing access. Pissing off politicians by attacking them for their corruption is a good way of losing access to said politicians and perhaps even having them defend themselves with regulatory policies against the industry.
Look at how often trump sues journalists, the new york times doesn't care if Trump sues them, but they care that they continue to have access to top members of the GOP establishment. But, to get that kind of access you have to pay to play.
I feel like we both said the same thing. So far no prominent news organization has spent any energy investigating these things, which as you said, is lazy.
Losing access is, like I said, blow back. Trump threatens to sue and black last news organizations that don't paint a pretty picture of him
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
The Washington Post is the only reason any Trump charitable pledges in recent history have actually been followed through on. They've been on Trump pretty hard almost the entire time, especially on his charity bull####. Predictably they've also been banned from the Trump campaign as a result.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
The Washington Post is the only reason any Trump charitable pledges in recent history have actually been followed through on. They've been on Trump pretty hard almost the entire time, especially on his charity bull####. Predictably they've also been banned from the Trump campaign as a result.
Exactly. One organization dug up a story that would have absolutely buried Clinton, and you have to google it to find any mention outside of WaPo. It's absurd
Trump is leading, although barely and within the margin of error, the new CNN voter poll. 45% Trump, 43% Clinton. Trump also has a big lead in polling with independent voters and he has a big lead in opinion polls about who is more honest and trustworthy.
For all the manpower and intelligence behind the Clinton campaign these sort of numbers must be troubling and disappointing.
It shows just how bad Clinton is as a campaigner. This should be a walk, the fact that it's even this close would be laughable if it wasn't so terrifying.
Just posting this because he's been mentioned at least a dozen times in this thread, but here's an interview with Scott Adams talking about his views on Trump. Presented without comment; interview starts at 7:40.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
To see Trump lead anybody when it comes to being honest and trustworthy just shows how sad this election is.
Definitely. For a country with size, strength and population of the USA it is hard to believe that Trump and Clinton are the nominees for President. These are the two worst leaders possible.
Just posting this because he's been mentioned at least a dozen times in this thread, but here's an interview with Scott Adams talking about his views on Trump. Presented without comment; interview starts at 7:40.
Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. Attention seekers are more prevalent because they have medium they once didn't, not because people tell them they can't speak. What utter nonsense
Anyway I didn't see anyone post this yesterday, but here's Krugman on the striking similarities between media coverage of the 2000 election and this one.
Quote:
Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.
You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.
Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.
And right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again.
