You're confusing nothing being reported with nothing sticking I'm thinking. We're not all digging up this information via our hard hitting investigative reporting. We're linking sites. Media sites.
Clearly being look at the amount of coverage the NYT gave to the hypotheticals on the Clinton Foundation versus the evidence based very likely fraud of the Trump Foundation. Look at what happens when Trump or his surrogates knowingly lie right to the face of reporters. Look at Trump taking a dump getting more coverage than anything Hillary can do. Look at CNN employing a paid Trump staffer in Lewandowski. If this were a 15 point race like it would be if Trump were covered like any other candidate, the media would be out tens and possibly hundreds of millions in ad revenue. They need Trump to be in this thing, and covering him properly would get him out quickly.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Well considering the Clinton foundation has foreign government money pouring into it, it's just more important than Trump bilking some rich people out of money. I'm sorry that you disagree with that, but I'd rather know about a legit political family doing this than some known crook doing what we expect.
If Clinton keeps her current pace, I'm sure everyone will feel a lot better blaming the "horrible media" after the loss.
I'd prefer she just stop making this as close as it is.
Clearly being look at the amount of coverage the NYT gave to the hypotheticals on the Clinton Foundation versus the evidence based very likely fraud of the Trump Foundation. Look at what happens when Trump or his surrogates knowingly lie right to the face of reporters. Look at Trump taking a dump getting more coverage than anything Hillary can do. Look at CNN employing a paid Trump staffer in Lewandowski. If this were a 15 point race like it would be if Trump were covered like any other candidate, the media would be out tens and possibly hundreds of millions in ad revenue. They need Trump to be in this thing, and covering him properly would get him out quickly.
99% of all articles I've read on CNN, Washingpost, NY Times, and just about everything outside of Fox News have been very negative towards Trump. I actually think the overwhelmingly negative coverage towards him fuels his supporters.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Interviewers like Jake Tapper and Christ Matthews have done exactly what you'd hope they do - push the envelope, cut through his noise, and nail him down on specifics. It takes an entire 8minute interview to get a address a single topic - and they get it done.
Hugh Hewitt exposed that Trump didn't have a grade-school understanding of the nuclear triad.
The audience doesn't care.
Doesn't care that Trump doesn't actually understand the positions he is espouses. If you ask a Trump voter, he'll tell you that.
Blaming the fair-minded press for not disqualifying him is vacuous.
nik, you're the bellweather in this thread for the shrillary nonsense that is plaguing this election.
You don't know what course of action she should take, but whatever she is doing now you don't like. Oh, she should just go and make herself likeable to people who don't like her? How does she do that? By pandering to them? no, that's insulting and you'd be the first person to point out she's just pandering.
This is a no-win situation for her because the stuffed shirt running opposite to her is such an awful candidate that whatever he does or says doesn't not have a tangible difference on the tone of level of coverage either candidate receives. If Hillary was facing Romney this would be a tight race battled out on platforms. Trump is such a waste basket of a candidate there is no substantive issues to even discuss.
Hate to break it to you, but you've been pushed over by this non-sense about her being a bad candidate or unlikable and this is coming from someone who has recently compared her to Frank Underwood.
Hillary cannot win on likeability, It will never happen. She wins on policy initiatives, experience and gut-check determinism.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Well considering the Clinton foundation has foreign government money pouring into it, it's just more important than Trump bilking some rich people out of money. I'm sorry that you disagree with that, but I'd rather know about a legit political family doing this than some known crook doing what we expect.
If Clinton keeps her current pace, I'm sure everyone will feel a lot better blaming the "horrible media" after the loss.
I'd prefer she just stop making this as close as it is.
The Clinton Foundation theories are exactly that, based on hearsay and conjecture with almost no facts to back up any of the theories on it. The Trump Foundation stuff has been basically acknowledged by the Trump campaign as true since they can't point to a single thing that was wrong with it. Imagine 9/11 truther stuff getting more coverage than an actual attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
99% of all articles I've read on CNN, Washingpost, NY Times, and just about everything outside of Fox News have been very negative towards Trump. I actually think the overwhelmingly negative coverage towards him fuels his supporters.
Watch CNN's televised coverage. Totally different animal, like having an active worker of the Trump campaign giving analysis. That's gotta be a first. The Post got themselves banned by the Trump campaign so they've clearly done their job this cycle. The NYT has gotten destroyed by so many this go round, they aren't pro-Trump by any stretch, but they've been soft in their coverage. Take his bait presser last week on the birther stuff. The NYT didn't even mention that he lied about Hillary pushing that first (the Post of course did). Their coverage has been very poor for such a reputable paper.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I want her to win. I originally stated she needs to focus on policy differences.
What are you even talking about?
you're the bellweather because you're a cynic. Once you've been converted it's a sign the message is reaching hyper levels. Commenting on her 'dullness' and how she can't inspire is the kind of commentary I'd expect from someone like Joe Scarborough, especially because for a politician she's actually pretty lively and dynamic.
It's all so boring. I don't even really care but work is slow so here we are.
The Clinton Foundation theories are exactly that, based on hearsay and conjecture with almost no facts to back up any of the theories on it. The Trump Foundation stuff has been basically acknowledged by the Trump campaign as true since they can't point to a single thing that was wrong with it. Imagine 9/11 truther stuff getting more coverage than an actual attack.
I'm not comfortable with the person running for president, and a former president, having a foundation that gets millions upon millions from foreign governments.
I guess this puts me on the level of a 9/11 truther.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
you're the bellweather because you're a cynic. Once you've been converted it's a sign the message is reaching hyper levels. Commenting on her 'dullness' and how she can't inspire is the kind of commentary I'd expect from someone like Joe Scarborough, especially because for a politician she's actually pretty lively and dynamic.
It's all so boring. I don't even really care but work is slow so here we are.
Well if you think she's lively and dynamic then we're trying to have a conversation from two sides of the Grand Canyon.
I am not a fan, but I do want her to win, and it bothers me that she's doing so poorly against the worst candidate since Goldwater.
I'm not comfortable with the person running for president, and a former president, having a foundation that gets millions upon millions from foreign governments.
I guess this puts me on the level of a 9/11 truther.
But what is your issue? That you think she'll change US policy to benefit Saudi Arabia (as if she could do anymore on that front that what's already being done)? Surely you're not worried about Norway and Australia right? That is a legitimate issue. But it's a quick, one day issue to resolve. And it's not like anything is being hidden, it's all right there in the open (unlike the Trump Foundation). Again, the NYT devoted significantly more coverage to that than to the Trump Foundation (though I suppose that could have to do with pettiness that the Post is dominating this story).
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
But what is your issue? That you think she'll change US policy to benefit Saudi Arabia (as if she could do anymore on that front that what's already being done)? Surely you're not worried about Norway and Australia right? That is a legitimate issue. But it's a quick, one day issue to resolve. Again, the NYT devoted significantly more coverage to that than to the Trump Foundation (though I suppose that could have to do with pettiness that the Post is dominating this story).
What's the difference between that and a lobbyist? That's my problem with it basically.
Maybe there's no hard proof for lobbyists gaining favour and foreign governments gaining favour as a result of past contributions. But no one seems to call people who think that the oil and smoking lobby gains influence through money "truthers".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Obviously considering how much coverage the Clinton Foundation has gotten (including at least two op eds saying it should be shut down immediately...including from the NYT), I don't think it's been dismissed at all. There just isn't any proof that those donations have resulted in any kickbacks, or that any improprieties have occurred. The Trump Foundation well...not so much, strong documented evidence of those occurring. Yet the evidence based one isn't getting the coverage of the theory based one. As I said before, I don't want to enter to post-factual world where we act on theories and not evidence.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The difference is one makes a known crook a crook. His foundation has about a million dollars in it. On the other side, you have a former president and a current presidential nominee who's $300 million dollar foundation is taking in donations from the Saudis that are 25 times the size of Trump's entire foundation's assets.
Do you honestly think that those two stories are on the same scale? Honestly?
And yes, that crook is running for president, but no one who supports him seems to care that he's a crook. Trump U didn't do anything, his past real estate deals didn't do anything, why would this?
I'm not comfortable with the person running for president, and a former president, having a foundation that gets millions upon millions from foreign governments.
I guess this puts me on the level of a 9/11 truther.
It's a charitable organization that predominantly serves a foriegn population, it would be bizarre if it didn't get money from foriegn sources.
If she or Bill was chairmen of the board of the Red Cross would you care?
The difference is one makes a known crook a crook. His foundation has about a million dollars in it. On the other side, you have a former president and a current presidential nominee who's $300 million dollar foundation is taking in donations from the Saudis that are 25 times the size of Trump's entire foundation's assets.
Do you honestly think that those two stories are on the same scale? Honestly?
And yes, that crook is running for president, but no one who supports him seems to care that he's a crook. Trump U didn't do anything, his past real estate deals didn't do anything, why would this?
But what is the "story" exactly is my point. The potential quid pro quo, but nothing proven and no evidence offered to suggest it will happen. So if the quid pro quo turns out to be true, then yes it's a bigger story. But as of now, my point is there isn't actually a story here. Just a theory. The Trump stuff is, well, an actual story. That doesn't mean it should be covered wall to wall non-stop, but it deserves to be covered more than the Clinton Foundation until there's evidence and not just "Saudi Arabia donated, so.....". Again what could she even do to help the Saudi's that the Americans aren't already doing? Sell even more arms? Ignore even more funding of terror? It's not like she can do much more for them.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
This is basically my stance on the Trump reporting. A TON of this stuff is being reported all the time, and it's really doing nothing. Blaming the media is silly and will do nothing to help.
That money to someone who influences foreign policy is a bad look. It's a valid concern when directed at any other comparable situation in politics, so why not here?
99% of all articles I've read on CNN, Washingpost, NY Times, and just about everything outside of Fox News have been very negative towards Trump. I actually think the overwhelmingly negative coverage towards him fuels his supporters.
I agree - Trump says "schlonged" and the media blows up about how disqualifying that is.
Then people tune out when they say 'disqualifying' again. And again.
It's long been a tactic of the left (and the press) to delegitimize their opponents. Now that well is dry.
For example; I am a long-time Rachel Maddow fan. I enjoy her style and find her show to be substantive. But she gets caught up pushing a narrative about the presumptive GOP nominee and....takes her eyes off the road.
I was so bothered by Rachel's effort to drive this narrative (Bush is not a clown, not someone to be taken seriously) that I actually wrote her show in...checking...November 2015 and told them this tactic was "unpalatable bordering on malicious."
