Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[cstu]

This is a new one on me. Bill had a multi million dollar consulting business - he made 6 mill on consulting vs 9 mill on speaking fees in 2013 or so IIRC.

You think other presidents have gotten as much as or close to $16 million in PUBLIC money so presidents can go profit to the tune of $15 million in PERSONAL profit a year? And you think we the people have been paying the salaries and benefits for the managers and directors at private entities? I'd like to see the homework on that.

You're telling me that the US government has been paying the salaries of people like Justin Cooper who work at private consulting firms? Gonna need a link.

Entire 27 page PDF report if you want to read about it. 

On page 5 you can see that W is getting more than Bill.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Entire 27 page PDF report if you want to read about it. 

On page 5 you can see that W is getting more than Bill.

Pre gaming for the Saints and FF draft so I will look when I can but tell me first - does that include salaries and benefits for employees of private entities, or not?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think you do either. Your position is rational, emotional but rational and grounded. So not hate.

Thank you. In my life I actually know a lot of people who think like Trump does. They're not bad people; it's just that they tend to think emotionally and simply about very complex issues. I wouldn't want any of them near the Presidency. 

I don't think Trump is a good guy, but he's not a rapist or murderer or truly evil (though I believe his ideas if enacted will lead to evil). 

 

[Guest]

Thank you. In my life I actually know a lot of people who think like Trump does. They're not bad people; it's just that they tend to think emotionally and simply about very complex issues. I wouldn't want any of them near the Presidency. 

I don't think Trump is a good guy, but he's not a rapist or murderer or truly evil (though I believe his ideas if enacted will lead to evil). 

If you think sex with minors is rape, you're probably wrong.  And you're probably wrong about Bill, too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Entire 27 page PDF report if you want to read about it. 

On page 5 you can see that W is getting more than Bill.

Ok this is the statement by Politico:

The analysis also found that Clinton’s representatives, between 2001, when the Clintons left the White House, and the end of this year, had requested allocations under the Act totaling $16 million. That’s more than any of the other living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — requested during that span.

That link you have there shows just $924,000 for Clinton.

So I think the GSA report is missing something, a lot actually.

Here's some more:

Clinton “is allocated funding for an office and for attendant costs (rent, utilities and salaries and benefits for staff),” foundation officials said in an emailed statement. “His office is allocated $96,000 per year for personnel salaries. GSA does not dictate the number of staff for whom the allocation is used.”

Of the $16 million requested under the former presidents fund, nearly $3 million has been slated for staff salary and benefits, according to GSA budgeting documents.

The documents do not list the names or positions of the former presidents’ federally paid employees. But sources say that several Bill Clinton staffers who have been paid through the GSA have also been paid through the foundation or his personal office. They include Doug Band, the former White House aide who previously helped run the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, and senior foundation official Laura Graham, whose foundation salary increased from $74,000 in 2005 to more than $180,000 in 2013, according to tax filings. Another Clinton insider believed to have been on the GSA payroll is Bill Clinton’s chief of staff Tina Flournoy, a former union official who advised Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and whose arrival on her husband’s staff in 2012 was seen by some insiders “as Hillary’s planting a sentinel,” according to a report in New York magazine.

The list reads like a field guide to Clinton World.

It includes longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who despite not having a security clearance, any apparent training in cybersecurity or a job at the State Department, in early 2009 helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton would use to send and receive classified information as secretary of state.

So there is nothing in the GSA report indicating that ex-presidents have been dumping their public benefits into private entities.

And the article does not state it but Band and Cooper both worked for Teneo, the Clinton-driven private consulting firm.

And the Hillary team lied about who paid for her private server last year - it wasn't the Clintons, it was the US government. The server itself was never private as it turned out, not in any conceivable way.

So no that link really doesn't do the trick.

 

[soothsayer]

The hatred is very real. A big chunk of the reason for Trump is the right's hatred of Obama and Hillary. We're not talking about dislike or opposition to policy- it's an emotional irrational hate. 

I know this has been asked before, but this seems the right time to ask it again. If the right "hates" both Obama and Hillary, where is the VRWC against Obama? Why would this mysterious right-wing attack machine spend so much time on Hillary (the Clintons) and so little time over the last 8 years attacking Obama? The discrepancy that appears to exist in both time and effort makes no sense, unless I have totally missed the VRWC attack on Obama... 

For whatever it's worth, I voted for Obama in the last two elections and do not vote according to party line.

There is no way I will vote for Trump because I think he's a buffoon, but how he'd actually lead as president is truly anyone's guess. His bluster is likely far worse than his actions would be. His presidency would likely be awful due to the new lows of discourse he'd continue to take us to, but in governance what we'd get from him is an unknown. My sense is his governance would be far more pedestrian that his rhetoric would suggest.

There is no way I will vote for Hillary because we know that we'll get more of the same from her - lies, misdirection, obfuscation and a complete lack of moral compass that should be a basic requirement of leadership. That said, her governance would likely be so middle of the road that I wouldn't find much offensive about it at all. Despite believing she'd likely be a "vanilla" president, I am unwilling to hold my nose and vote for her (again, because I simply don't believe that a Trump presidency would be nearly the disaster many predict).

So, nice options. As of now my vote is going to Gary Johnson. Or I may just stay home. In my mind, "pulling the lever" for either Hillary or Trump is implicit approval of our two-party system - saying " it's ok these are the two options, I'll choose one of them." It isn't ok...and I won't.

 

[The Commish]

Hate is a symptom of fear....let's not over complicate this and make more of it than necessary.  This is one of the primary reasons, I don't allow fear to be part of the equation politically.  There's already so many other layers, fear doesn't need to be part of the equation.  Problem is, politicians know that fear motivates and they play that drum every opportunity they have.  It's an easy way to get people to ignore the things they should be focused on and pay attention, instead, to the things that don't matter all that much (i.e.  "lets cure the symptom without fixing the core issue" ) slight of hand kind of ####.  

 

[timschochet]

I know this has been asked before, but this seems the right time to ask it again. If the right "hates" both Obama and Hillary, where is the VRWC against Obama? Why would this mysterious right-wing attack machine spend so much time on Hillary (the Clintons) and so little time over the last 8 years attacking Obama? The discrepancy that appears to exist in both time and effort makes no sense, unless I have totally missed the VRWC attack on Obama... 

For whatever it's worth, I voted for Obama in the last two elections and do not vote according to party line.

There is no way I will vote for Trump because I think he's a buffoon, but how he'd actually lead as president is truly anyone's guess. His bluster is likely far worse than his actions would be. His presidency would likely be awful due to the new lows of discourse he'd continue to take us to, but in governance what we'd get from him is an unknown. My sense is his governance would be far more pedestrian that his rhetoric would suggest.

There is no way I will vote for Hillary because we know that we'll get more of the same from her - lies, misdirection, obfuscation and a complete lack of moral compass that should be a basic requirement of leadership. That said, her governance would likely be so middle of the road that I wouldn't find much offensive about it at all. Despite believing she'd likely be a "vanilla" president, I am unwilling to hold my nose and vote for her (again, because I simply don't believe that a Trump presidency would be nearly the disaster many predict).

So, nice options. As of now my vote is going to Gary Johnson. Or I may just stay home. In my mind, "pulling the lever" for either Hillary or Trump is implicit approval of our two-party system - saying " it's ok these are the two options, I'll choose one of them." It isn't ok...and I won't.

The Birther conspiracy was worse than any accusation made against the Clintons outside of murder, and it was mostly believed by the same people. It was worse because it's rooted in racism and fear of the outsider. If I had to list the most damaging conspiracy theories of the last 25 years it would be: 

1. Trutherism- not the rather benign theory that Bush screwed up, or even the more dangerous theory that he knew and allowed it to happen, but the theory that Bush was actually complicit in 9/11. Simply the worst conspiracy in American history. 

2. Vince Foster/other Clinton murders. As seen in this thread, there are still people that believe this. 

3. Birtherism- racism and xenophobia combined and brought us Donald Trump. 

4. All the other Clinton scandals. 

 

[bueno]

The Birther conspiracy was worse than any accusation made against the Clintons outside of murder, and it was mostly believed by the same people. It was worse because it's rooted in racism and fear of the outsider. If I had to list the most damaging conspiracy theories of the last 25 years it would be: 

1. Trutherism- not the rather benign theory that Bush screwed up, or even the more dangerous theory that he knew and allowed it to happen, but the theory that Bush was actually complicit in 9/11. Simply the worst conspiracy in American history. 

2. Vince Foster/other Clinton murders. As seen in this thread, there are still people that believe this. 

3. Birtherism- racism and xenophobia combined and brought us Donald Trump. 

4. All the other Clinton scandals. 

Birtherism isn't really a conspiracy theory, is it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Birther conspiracy was worse than any accusation made against the Clintons outside of murder, and it was mostly believed by the same people. It was worse because it's rooted in racism and fear of the outsider.

3. Birtherism- racism and xenophobia combined and brought us Donald Trump. 

Eh, Trump used this exact same conspiracy theory for Ted Cruz.

And he added Rafael Cruz as presidential assassin.

4. All the other Clinton scandals. 

Ok here you yourself go full blown conspiracy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut. So there's a conspiracy to create fake conspiracies. Yeah uhm ok.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I know this has been asked before, but this seems the right time to ask it again. If the right "hates" both Obama and Hillary, where is the VRWC against Obama? Why would this mysterious right-wing attack machine spend so much time on Hillary (the Clintons) and so little time over the last 8 years attacking Obama? The discrepancy that appears to exist in both time and effort makes no sense, unless I have totally missed the VRWC attack on Obama... 

For whatever it's worth, I voted for Obama in the last two elections and do not vote according to party line.

There is no way I will vote for Trump because I think he's a buffoon, but how he'd actually lead as president is truly anyone's guess. His bluster is likely far worse than his actions would be. His presidency would likely be awful due to the new lows of discourse he'd continue to take us to, but in governance what we'd get from him is an unknown. My sense is his governance would be far more pedestrian that his rhetoric would suggest.

There is no way I will vote for Hillary because we know that we'll get more of the same from her - lies, misdirection, obfuscation and a complete lack of moral compass that should be a basic requirement of leadership. That said, her governance would likely be so middle of the road that I wouldn't find much offensive about it at all. Despite believing she'd likely be a "vanilla" president, I am unwilling to hold my nose and vote for her (again, because I simply don't believe that a Trump presidency would be nearly the disaster many predict).

So, nice options. As of now my vote is going to Gary Johnson. Or I may just stay home. In my mind, "pulling the lever" for either Hillary or Trump is implicit approval of our two-party system - saying " it's ok these are the two options, I'll choose one of them." It isn't ok...and I won't.

You are now the second person to make this argument today.  I have hundreds of counterarguments I could make.  I made one earlier (what his comments on debt default would do if made by a president).  I'll make one more now.  I can do this every day the next few months, but I figure one per "how bad can he be?" post is enough.

Many politicians have an uneasy relationship with the press, and many tell lies.  Trump, however, is the first to show open disdain for the press, to encourage his followers to do the same, and to ban media from covering his events if he doesn't like their coverage. He is also the first politician I can remember who simply paid no mind when caught in a lie. He disregards the criticism and questions, instructs his press people simply not to respond, and moves forward.

Clinton has been caught lying or providing misleading information to be sure, but when she does her press people always respond to inquiries about it, and she will apologize or at least try to wexplain herself every single time. Trump, in contrast, flat out ignores the questions and criticisms and requests for explanation. He's essentially post-truth. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented to him.

This disregard for the truth combined with a lack of accountability and a disdain for the press- a fundamental rejection of the role of the press as a check on government power- is to my knowledge unique in American history.  In fact the only countries where you see it are dangerous dictatorships. If a Watergate-type event happened to Trump he'd simply say they were making it all up and disregard further inquiry. If we condone that sort of attitude by electing it to the presidency we've basically given up on demanding accountability from our elected leaders through the free press. He'll set a precedent and everyone who follows will know they can get away with it too.

 

[timschochet]

Birtherism isn't really a conspiracy theory, is it?

Of course it is. 

 

[timschochet]

Eh, Trump used this exact same conspiracy theory for Ted Cruz.

And he added Rafael Cruz as presidential assassin.

Ok here you yourself go full blown conspiracy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut. So there's a conspiracy to create fake conspiracies. Yeah uhm ok.

You need to stop with this already. I have stated several times that the VRWC should be called a movement because it's not a conspiracy at all. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Clintons are lawyers with no principle.

Way to be redundant.

 

[timschochet]

And the Cruz birth issue was not a conspiracy theory, which is why it didn't catch on. 

There was never any question where Cruz was born. The issue there was how we define a natural born citizen. With regard to Obama, the accusation was that he was secretly born in Kenya- that's what made it racist. 

 

[jonessed]

Tim - get your head out of the sand.

Ask yourself why there were not more mainstream democrats running to replace a popular Democratic president?  Clinton had locked up the endorsements and the big money donors before the race ever began.  At that point, any democrat who dared to cross the line risked political suicide.  The DNC allowed that to happen.

Hillary found herself in a tight race against a 74-yo Socialist from Vermont, who funded his campaign with small donations.  If that does not show you how flawed she is - then you just decide to ignore the obvious.

The DNC didn't just allow it to happen.  Their executives were running cover for her the whole time.  Talk about a stacked deck.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And the Cruz birth issue was not a conspiracy theory, which is why it didn't catch on. 

There was never any question where Cruz was born. The issue there was how we define a natural born citizen. With regard to Obama, the accusation was that he was secretly born in Kenya- that's what made it racist. 

I think the only reason it matters is the suggestion that someone is not American, and Cruz is also Hispanic.

And personally I think the JFK assassination claim about his father is worse than birtherism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You need to stop with this already. I have stated several times that the VRWC should be called a movement because it's not a conspiracy at all. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. 

You clearly are, sorry for the offense. As for VRWC it is by definition a conspiracy. And it's Hillary's definition by the way. If you're offended by the C in VRWC you should be offended by Hillary, she put it there.

 

[The Commish]

You are now the second person to make this argument today.  I have hundreds of counterarguments I could make.  I made one earlier (what his comments on debt default would do if made by a president).  I'll make one more now.  I can do this every day the next few months, but I figure one per "how bad can he be?" post is enough.

Many politicians have an uneasy relationship with the press, and many tell lies.  Trump, however, is the first to show open disdain for the press, to encourage his followers to do the same, and to ban media from covering his events if he doesn't like their coverage. He is also the first politician I can remember who simply paid no mind when caught in a lie. He disregards the criticism and questions, instructs his press people simply not to respond, and moves forward.

Clinton has been caught lying or providing misleading information to be sure, but when she does her press people always respond to inquiries about it, and she will apologize or at least try to wexplain herself every single time. Trump, in contrast, flat out ignores the questions and criticisms and requests for explanation. He's essentially post-truth. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented to him.

This disregard for the truth combined with a lack of accountability and a disdain for the press- a fundamental rejection of the role of the press as a check on government power- is to my knowledge unique in American history.  In fact the only countries where you see it are dangerous dictatorships. If a Watergate-type event happened to Trump he'd simply say they were making it all up and disregard further inquiry. If we condone that sort of attitude by electing it to the presidency we've basically given up on demanding accountability from our elected leaders through the free press. He'll set a precedent and everyone who follows will know they can get away with it too.

Couple things here....not sure "lying" is the topic we want to contrast these two on.  If we do, and we're being honest, the major difference between the two is Trump doesn't care enough about the press to throw meaningless platitudes out there.  Personally?  I don't see a significant difference between throwing out a thinly veiled platitude with no real meaning behind it and simply not answering.  

I do agree that the disdain is worrisome.  That's on the press though.  I know we have been round and round about the press, but they're part of this problem of Trump IMO.  The media outlets have sent their press people to cover Trump, but they don't hold him accountable.  Most back down from the  which I think is garbage.  They don't hold him accountable either....not like they do with others anyway.  They want the ratings first, so they will go right up to that line where they can get his content on TV to get viewer eyes, but won't cross the line necessary to expose the idiot for what he is.

Are there people in the press that aren't part of this group?  Of course.  I don't want to get into that semantic argument again about what "press" means.  I understand there are some out there who buck this trend.  There aren't enough IMO and I can't help but chuckle at this notion that our media continues to be a legit "check" on the government.  All the main media outlets, every single one, is about viewer eyeballs and content consumption.  Whatever is going to get them those things is what they're going to do.

All that said, I do recommend checking out some of the media outlets from other countries.  Some of them are pretty good and you don't have to weed through all the  to get to the information.

 

[badmojo1006]

For people who have been wondering what Hillary has been doing, fundraising to the tune of $143 million in August 

 

[Parrothead]

For people who have been wondering what Hillary has been doing, fundraising to the tune of $143 million in August 

i'm sure she's been mingling with all the little people she pretends to care about

 

[jamny]

After 8 years of the kid glove treatment a President Trump would be the best thing to ever happen to the MSM.

 

[Gr00vus]

For people who have been wondering what Hillary has been doing, fundraising to the tune of $143 million in August 

That's insane.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is so spot on, it's sad.  I place substantial blame on people like @timschochet who promoted Hillary, not just as a good Presidential candidate, but laughably as one who would win over voters and easily win.  He and others buried their heads in the sand with her, obfuscated or otherwise evaded the facts and her deficiencies, and put this country in jeopardy for supporting such a vile, corrupt candidate who is on the verge of losing to a crazy person.  

I understand and agree to an extent with Tonias Funk's argument that Trump voters bear the blame as well.  Obviously they do.  But, some of us have been pleading with people to take off their rose colored glasses with Hillary and take a step back and survey just how threatening she was as a candidate in the democratic race...that she has decades of skirting the truth and with the looming server and foundation scandals, she was unfit to present to the rest of the country, even as an alternative to Trump.  Think of how crazy this is...that anyone could lose to Trump.  But, some of us were very adamant from the beginning that the one person who could lose was Hillary.  And Tim and others just put up garbage crap, so out of touch with politics and her compromised candidacy that we are on the brink of a crisis if she loses.

And, not to lay all the blame on Tim.  Of course he is not fully responsible.  But, he represents that large enough swath of blind cheerleaders who paid no attention, couldn't be bothered by other opinions, let alone informing themselves of Hillary's political problems, and were otherwise close-minded fools.  They bear so much blame for is if she loses.

This is an excellent post.  I think it may be a candidate for Post of  the Year.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

This is an excellent post.  I think it may be a candidate for Post of  the Year.

"You liked Hillary too much, so I had to vote for Trump. I told you so."

That's post of the year material?

 

[timschochet]

There is some good news today: Hillary is now tied with Trump in Arizona. And she's decided to spend a lot of money there. Why not? That's the one thing in this campaign she's got a lot of. Commercials may not be as effective as they've been in past elections, but they should still have SOME impact. 

Arizona has the highest number of Latino millennials in the nation. And they seem to be energized. If they come out and vote Trump is in big trouble (for that matter so is John McCain)...

 

[MaxThreshold]

"You liked Hillary too much, so I had to vote for Trump. I told you so."

That's post of the year material?

You're summation, of course, is completely wrong.  And I get that - Hillary sycophants don't want to hear that they are sycophants (and hypocrites).

But yeah, post of the year because it's spot on.  

I give it

         

out of 5 thumbs up.

 

[squistion]

"You liked Hillary too much, so I had to vote for Trump. I told you so."

That's post of the year material?

Why should you be surprised? This is the same guy making references to Pravda in 2016.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why should you be surprised? This is the same guy making references to Pravda in 2016.

If the shoe fits...

Seems like everyone knows what I was talking about except you.  Should we be surprised you don't get it?  Nope.

 

[renesauz]

A lot of Bernie supporters don't like her as well.

This is true, but only as far as it actually says. Most of us Bernie supporter don't like her, and many of us feel like she's in bed with Wall Street. Most of us will still vote for her because she's a far better candidate than trump. But the pure hatred of her from the Fox folks is very difficult to understand. I never hated either BUsh or Reagen like that, and don't recall anywhere close to the same level of vitriol as has been flung at Clinton and Obama the last few years. There are millions of people out there right now that can't even say Obama, but insist he's "Obumma", and would never say "Mrs. Clinton" but instead "crooked Hillary".  To be sure she has skeletons, but as far as I can tell they're pretty much the same kidns of skeletons that politicans have always had. The constant "EMAILS!" and "Bengazi" are more than ridiculous. There are millions out there who vehemently oppose anything and everything either of them has ever or will ever propose simply because they are "Obumma" and "crooked Hillary" withou ever truly considering the actual proposal, and I find that fact absolutely disgusting. Is it Fox news?

 

[Sand]

There are millions out there who vehemently oppose anything and everything either of them has ever or will ever propose simply because they are "Obumma" and "crooked Hillary" withou ever truly considering the actual proposal, and I find that fact absolutely disgusting. Is it Fox news?

Nah, only thing to explain it is racism and sexism.  And ageism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is true, but only as far as it actually says. Most of us Bernie supporter don't like her, and many of us feel like she's in bed with Wall Street. Most of us will still vote for her because she's a far better candidate than trump. But the pure hatred of her from the Fox folks is very difficult to understand. I never hated either BUsh or Reagen like that, and don't recall anywhere close to the same level of vitriol as has been flung at Clinton and Obama the last few years. There are millions of people out there right now that can't even say Obama, but insist he's "Obumma", and would never say "Mrs. Clinton" but instead "crooked Hillary".  To be sure she has skeletons, but as far as I can tell they're pretty much the same kidns of skeletons that politicans have always had. The constant "EMAILS!" and "Bengazi" are more than ridiculous. There are millions out there who vehemently oppose anything and everything either of them has ever or will ever propose simply because they are "Obumma" and "crooked Hillary" withou ever truly considering the actual proposal, and I find that fact absolutely disgusting. Is it Fox news?

What policies do they support that could ever enrage people? They're third way triangulating conservatives, big deal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Policy wise is there a Democrat anywhere that conservatives would rather see elected?

 

[cobalt_27]

I voted Bill twice and Obama twice and will never cast my vote for HRC.   The hate for HRC is not a partisan thing, time to wake up.

Yup, that's me.

 

[cobalt_27]

"You liked Hillary too much, so I had to vote for Trump. I told you so."

That's post of the year material?

No, more like, you liked the idea of Hillary too much that you helped create a sense of inevitability and an illusion that didn't conform to the facts.  All this, despite the fact that all the information was staring you right in the face, the writing was on the wall.  And, if she loses in November, you have to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you took an active part in the whole charade.

 

[squistion]

Policy wise is there a Democrat anywhere that conservatives would rather see elected?

Jim Webb?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jim Webb?

That's one. - Electable to president that is.

 

[Guest]

This is so spot on, it's sad.  I place substantial blame on people like @timschochet who promoted Hillary, not just as a good Presidential candidate, but laughably as one who would win over voters and easily win.  He and others buried their heads in the sand with her, obfuscated or otherwise evaded the facts and her deficiencies, and put this country in jeopardy for supporting such a vile, corrupt candidate who is on the verge of losing to a crazy person.  

I understand and agree to an extent with Tonias Funk's argument that Trump voters bear the blame as well.  Obviously they do.  But, some of us have been pleading with people to take off their rose colored glasses with Hillary and take a step back and survey just how threatening she was as a candidate in the democratic race...that she has decades of skirting the truth and with the looming server and foundation scandals, she was unfit to present to the rest of the country, even as an alternative to Trump.  Think of how crazy this is...that anyone could lose to Trump.  But, some of us were very adamant from the beginning that the one person who could lose was Hillary.  And Tim and others just put up garbage crap, so out of touch with politics and her compromised candidacy that we are on the brink of a crisis if she loses.

And, not to lay all the blame on Tim.  Of course he is not fully responsible.  But, he represents that large enough swath of blind cheerleaders who paid no attention, couldn't be bothered by other opinions, let alone informing themselves of Hillary's political problems, and were otherwise close-minded fools.  They bear so much blame for is if she loses.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Couple things here....not sure "lying" is the topic we want to contrast these two on.  If we do, and we're being honest, the major difference between the two is Trump doesn't care enough about the press to throw meaningless platitudes out there.  Personally?  I don't see a significant difference between throwing out a thinly veiled platitude with no real meaning behind it and simply not answering.  

I do agree that the disdain is worrisome.  That's on the press though.  I know we have been round and round about the press, but they're part of this problem of Trump IMO.  The media outlets have sent their press people to cover Trump, but they don't hold him accountable.  Most back down from the  which I think is garbage.  They don't hold him accountable either....not like they do with others anyway.  They want the ratings first, so they will go right up to that line where they can get his content on TV to get viewer eyes, but won't cross the line necessary to expose the idiot for what he is.

Are there people in the press that aren't part of this group?  Of course.  I don't want to get into that semantic argument again about what "press" means.  I understand there are some out there who buck this trend.  There aren't enough IMO and I can't help but chuckle at this notion that our media continues to be a legit "check" on the government.  All the main media outlets, every single one, is about viewer eyeballs and content consumption.  Whatever is going to get them those things is what they're going to do.

All that said, I do recommend checking out some of the media outlets from other countries.  Some of them are pretty good and you don't have to weed through all the  to get to the information.

You can't say that, because your "semantic" error results in your missing the entire point.  The "press" you chastise is not what I'm talking about. You seem to be talking about cable news and clickbait and gotcha moments and whatnot.  But I'm talking about the press in the sense that they're the reason all of us know pretty much any of the things we discuss here.  If it weren't for the press you wouldn't know all the things you hate about Clinton or Trump or Congress or "the establishment" or anything else you hold views about.  The election would be reality TV star vs wife of a former president and that would be all the information we'd have, other than what they might say in a campaign speech if they showed up in your town and you or someone you know attended. No stories about Clinton's emails or conflicts of interest, no investigations into Trump's shady past dealings

Clinton dislikes much of the press because she feels they treat her unfairly, and I wish she did much better, but she at least understands their basic role as a surrogate for the American people. She would never ban respected media outlets from her campaign beat, or refuse to answer a chorus of questions challenging the accuracy of something she said, even if it's something as innocuous as praising Nancy Reagan on AIDS in the wake of her death. Trump hasn't been accountable even when spewing far more important and objective falsehoods.

If you don't understand the value of the press here, and the danger of electing someone who is comfortable lying and then ignoring questions about those lies while blocking media coverage on a whim, you need to figure it out.  It's a huge deal.  Other than the potential for a dangerous foreign policy disaster I'd say it's the biggest risk of a Trump presidency. Post-accountability national politics would be a nightmare for democracy.

 

[The Commish]

You can't say that, because your "semantic" error results in your missing the entire point.  The "press" you chastise is not what I'm talking about. You seem to be talking about cable news and clickbait and gotcha moments and whatnot.  But I'm talking about the press in the sense that they're the reason all of us know pretty much any of the things we discuss here.  If it weren't for the press you wouldn't know all the things you hate about Clinton or Trump or Congress or "the establishment" or anything else you hold views about.  The election would be reality TV star vs wife of a former president and that would be all the information we'd have, other than what they might say in a campaign speech if they showed up in your town and you or someone you know attended. No stories about Clinton's emails or conflicts of interest, no investigations into Trump's shady past dealings

Clinton dislikes much of the press because she feels they treat her unfairly, and I wish she did much better, but she at least understands their basic role as a surrogate for the American people. She would never ban respected media outlets from her campaign beat, or refuse to answer a chorus of questions challenging the accuracy of something she said, even if it's something as innocuous as praising Nancy Reagan on AIDS in the wake of her death. Trump hasn't been accountable even when spewing far more important and objective falsehoods.

If you don't understand the value of the press here, and the danger of electing someone who is comfortable lying and then ignoring questions about those lies while blocking media coverage on a whim, you need to figure it out.  It's a huge deal.  Other than the potential for a dangerous foreign policy disaster I'd say it's the biggest risk of a Trump presidency. Post-accountability national politics would be a nightmare for democracy.

I get it...we've been down this road before....and as I said before, I've given up (for the most part) on our "press" in this country.  I go elsewhere like BBC, Canada and the like to get actual news.  I know what you mean because we've had this discussion before.  However, others here (most here?) will assume you're talking about our news media when you say "the press".

I stand firmly behind the opinion that if our "press" (as you use the term) would have done their job and done it well, Trump wouldn't be an issue today.  Since our last discussion about this distinction I've watched with a much closer eye to the group you specified in that conversation.  They've been pretty invisible outside opinion pieces that are immediately dismissed as opinion pieces.  I just don't see this underground group being all that important in what drives our information gathering.  It's much easier to get the information sans opinion from sources outside the country and those sources seem to be well funded and pretty comprehensive in their reports.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I get it...we've been down this road before....and as I said before, I've given up (for the most part) on our "press" in this country.  I go elsewhere like BBC, Canada and the like to get actual news.  I know what you mean because we've had this discussion before.  However, others here (most here?) will assume you're talking about our news media when you say "the press".

I stand firmly behind the opinion that if our "press" (as you use the term) would have done their job and done it well, Trump wouldn't be an issue today.  Since our last discussion about this distinction I've watched with a much closer eye to the group you specified in that conversation.  They've been pretty invisible outside opinion pieces that are immediately dismissed as opinion pieces.  I just don't see this underground group being all that important in what drives our information gathering.  It's much easier to get the information sans opinion from sources outside the country and those sources seem to be well funded and pretty comprehensive in their reports.

What difference does it make if they're domestic or international?  Trump and his campaign don't answer inquiries or fact-checks from any of them.  And if he's turning away the Washington Post at the door I'm pretty sure he'll turn away the BBC too.  Sorry I just don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.  What you may think about the quality of domestic media coverage is completely irrelevant to the dangers of a president who feels no accountability to any media (and by extension to the American people).  And yes I know this isn't Clinton's forte either, and she should be criticized for that.  But as I've explained Trump is on a totally different and far more dangerous level.

 

[The Commish]

What difference does it make if they're domestic or international?  Trump and his campaign don't answer inquiries or fact-checks from any of them.  And if he's turning away the Washington Post at the door I'm pretty sure he'll turn away the BBC too.  Sorry I just don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.  What you may think about the quality of domestic media coverage is completely irrelevant to the dangers of a president who feels no accountability to any media (and by extension to the American people).  And yes I know this isn't Clinton's forte either, and she should be criticized for that.  But as I've explained Trump is on a totally different and far more dangerous level.

For the reasons I mentioned and they have little to do with Trump.  Like it or not, our "media" defines our "press" as well.  Perception is reality in this realm.  So if the collective "media" is dismissive of a source in the "press", the minions follow.  So even our "press" has an uphill battle in this country.  They find themselves in obscure places, hoping to get the information out to those who want it.  This isn't the case with the foreign press.  Our media can't have that sort of impact on them.  That's my guess as to why a lot of our "press" seems to be used by these foreign outlets.  They are seen as credible and it's much easier to get their information out without the US "media" poo-pooing them.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

For the reasons I mentioned and they have little to do with Trump.  Like it or not, our "media" defines our "press" as well.  Perception is reality in this realm.  So if the collective "media" is dismissive of a source in the "press", the minions follow.  So even our "press" has an uphill battle in this country.  They find themselves in obscure places, hoping to get the information out to those who want it.  This isn't the case with the foreign press.  Our media can't have that sort of impact on them.  That's my guess as to why a lot of our "press" seems to be used by these foreign outlets.  They are seen as credible and it's much easier to get their information out without the US "media" poo-pooing them.  

Sounds like an interesting topic for a media criticism thread, but has absolutely nothing to do with the dangers of a president who rejects the role of the press (be it domestic, foreign, interplanetary, whatever) in a functioning democracy.

 

[The Commish]

Sounds like an interesting topic for a media criticism thread, but has absolutely nothing to do with the dangers of a president who rejects the role of the press (be it domestic, foreign, interplanetary, whatever) in a functioning democracy.

At the risk of shining that "exactly equal" bat signal for TGunz, Tim etc.....that's not what I'm saying, but again, the argument here boils down to wrapping because where I am coming from I see little difference between giving a non answer wrapped in transparent political niceties and flat out not answering/ignoring.  In practical terms, the result is the same.  Yeah, he has the additional hyperbole of "roping off the media" and all that good stuff and I've said a billion times he's a doosh for doing stupid #### like that, but I don't think there is a politician alive who doesn't reject the role of the press to some extent.  The problem Trump has is there is no news outlet (outside Hannity maybe?) that would be on his side.  I am absolutely confident he'd LOVE an outlet that LOVED him, like the rest.  The only reason he rejects it all is because they all reject him.

 

[bagger]

There is some good news today: Hillary is now tied with Trump in Arizona. And she's decided to spend a lot of money there. Why not? That's the one thing in this campaign she's got a lot of. Commercials may not be as effective as they've been in past elections, but they should still have SOME impact. 

Arizona has the highest number of Latino millennials in the nation. And they seem to be energized. If they come out and vote Trump is in big trouble (for that matter so is John McCain)...

I wouldn't be so sure. If that was true that a hole sheriff Joe would be in trouble which he is not. The old white trailer park meth head voting block is still strong in this state.

 

[TobiasFunke]

At the risk of shining that "exactly equal" bat signal for TGunz, Tim etc.....that's not what I'm saying, but again, the argument here boils down to wrapping because where I am coming from I see little difference between giving a non answer wrapped in transparent political niceties and flat out not answering/ignoring.  In practical terms, the result is the same.  Yeah, he has the additional hyperbole of "roping off the media" and all that good stuff and I've said a billion times he's a doosh for doing stupid #### like that, but I don't think there is a politician alive who doesn't reject the role of the press to some extent.  The problem Trump has is there is no news outlet (outside Hannity maybe?) that would be on his side.  I am absolutely confident he'd LOVE an outlet that LOVED him, like the rest.  The only reason he rejects it all is because they all reject him.

Except this isn't the contrast.  Clinton, whose treatment of the media is terrible compared to most politicians, responses to fact check inquiries and admits mistakes when caught making one (see Nancy Reagan, Bosnian gunfire, vote on Iraq, etc.). Trump and his campaign do not.  She does not bar the media from covering her events if she doesn't like their coverage.  Trump does.

Consider the hypo if one of them is president and everything goes to hell in a handbasket:

FFA Daily News Reporter:  Mr(s) President, unemployment is at 25%, we're losing our war with Liechtenstein, and acid rain is turning our childrens' skin neon green.  What do you say to the American people about these problems?

Clinton response: [winding combination of explanations and excuses regarding these things and promises to do better, hopefully with some detail]

Trump response: "That's a lie.  We have full employment, we've won the war, and the rain provides our children's skin with healthy nutrients they need!" [turns to press staff and tells them to ban the FFA from covering all press conferences and other events]

Do you really not see the difference between those two, and how dangerous it is if people signal that they're OK with the latter approach by electing Trump?

 

[The Commish]

Except this isn't the contrast.  Clinton, whose treatment of the media is terrible compared to most politicians, responses to fact check inquiries and admits mistakes when caught making one (see Nancy Reagan, Bosnian gunfire, vote on Iraq, etc.). Trump and his campaign do not.  She does not bar the media from covering her events if she doesn't like their coverage.  Trump does.

Consider the hypo if one of them is president and everything goes to hell in a handbasket:

FFA Daily News Reporter:  Mr(s) President, unemployment is at 25%, we're losing our war with Liechtenstein, and acid rain is turning our childrens' skin neon green.  What do you say to the American people about these problems?

Clinton response: [winding combination of explanations and excuses regarding these things and promises to do better, hopefully with some detail]

Trump response: "That's a lie.  We have full employment, we've won the war, and the rain provides our children's skin with healthy nutrients they need!" [turns to press staff and tells them to ban the FFA from covering all press conferences and other events]

Do you really not see the difference between those two, and how dangerous it is if people signal that they're OK with the latter approach by electing Trump?

I think you're being overly generous to Hillary personally.  She'll "admit" a mistake one day, then double down the next.  After months of deflecting, non answers etc, she MIGHT finally get to an admission with no qualifications.  See the email "scandal" as an example.

Clearly the approaches are different.  I've said that and acknowledged that.  It's completely different packaging.  I get it.  How they ignore or deflect doesn't matter all that much to me personally.  And I get the concern, I really do.  I just feel like it's a concern for 20 years ago when information was much harder to get hold of.

 

[timschochet]

At the risk of shining that "exactly equal" bat signal for TGunz, Tim etc.....that's not what I'm saying, but again, the argument here boils down to wrapping because where I am coming from I see little difference between giving a non answer wrapped in transparent political niceties and flat out not answering/ignoring.  In practical terms, the result is the same.  Yeah, he has the additional hyperbole of "roping off the media" and all that good stuff and I've said a billion times he's a doosh for doing stupid #### like that, but I don't think there is a politician alive who doesn't reject the role of the press to some extent.  The problem Trump has is there is no news outlet (outside Hannity maybe?) that would be on his side.  I am absolutely confident he'd LOVE an outlet that LOVED him, like the rest.  The only reason he rejects it all is because they all reject him.

Bat signal alerted! 

You simply refuse, for whatever reason, to recognize what a threat to our democracy a Trump presidency would be. Yes you don't like him. You think he's slightly worse than Hillary. Yet you ultimately perceive him as just another candidate in a political system you find wanting, rather than a unique danger to our liberty. 

 

[Guest]

Bat signal alerted! 

You simply refuse, for whatever reason, to recognize what a threat to our democracy a Trump presidency would be. Yes you don't like him. You think he's slightly worse than Hillary. Yet you ultimately perceive him as just another candidate in a political system you find wanting, rather than a unique danger to our liberty. 

Hillary Clinton is a unique danger as well.  Her fingers are so deep in the pie little will be left when she pulls her hand to her mouth.  

 

[The Commish]

Bat signal alerted! 

You simply refuse, for whatever reason, to recognize what a threat to our democracy a Trump presidency would be. Yes you don't like him. You think he's slightly worse than Hillary. Yet you ultimately perceive him as just another candidate in a political system you find wanting, rather than a unique danger to our liberty. 

I don't see the point in distinguishing between "unique danger" and "danger".  Is he something we've never seen before?  Sure.  Why that makes a difference is beyond me.  Is he a danger in a completely different way than Hillary is?  Sure.  In the end, he's a danger.  I happen to believe that she is as well for different reasons.  In the end, both are dangers.  Trying to parse and justify beyond serves no purpose outside of political