US Politics

[gambit]

I agree. The media's lack of coverage regarding Hillary Clinton's email scandal was shameful. However, the FBI essentially letting her off the hook made it difficult for them to continue covering the issue. It just came off as beating a dead horse. Even though it was a legitimate issue.

On the one hand, find someone not guilty under the technicalities of the laws and trials often compels observers to minimize moral judgement as well. But on the other hand, just like how bosses of organized crime often 'got off on a technicality' that is equally compelling for people to continue viewing organized crime leaders as cancer of society.

I say the media have an obligation to pursue the issue precisely because the President is supposed to be a person of exceptional moral leadership, not whether what he/she do crosses the criminality line.

Do I have the right to demand the President to be a saint ? Absolutely I have that right. But just because we all falls short of the saintly standards, that does not mean I do not have the right to demand he/she approaches those standards as close as possible. After all, we are talking about the person who occupies that office making decisions that will affect everything in my life, from how much money I can make for my family to whether or not one day mine and your sons may die in a foreign military adventure.

The Bushes are no longer in contention for the White House, but take a look at this book...

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Real-Story-Bush-Dynasty/dp/0385503245

Usually, whenever we see any book about any person of note that have the word 'real' in its title, it is usually not a very flattering reportage. Without any evidence that would stand on its own in a court of law, the Bushes are still under moral suspicions and indictments.

It is fine to beat the dead horse when it comes to the Bushes but not fine for the Clintons ?

On this, I have to disagree with you. He could have released his tax returns on his own and avoided some of the shock factor. He chose not to do. Secondly, the people are free to make their own decisions. There is no "rig" on this particular issue of any kind. The media is simply reporting the truth. Personally, I would hope that people find it horrific that such a rich man has been able to avoid paying taxes through what seem to be completely legal means. The tax code needs a serious overhaul.

My point was not about Trump and his taxes.

Personally, I do not and have never claimed my charity donations on my tax filings, even though I know it is legal to do so in order to reduce my tax liability. If it turned out the the Lump is not as charitable person as he made himself out to be and that he exploited every possible tax loopholes we have, that will be just another negative moral mark I can use to judge him as a person.

My point is that it is hypocritical for the media to focus on Chump's moralities for everything he does while letting Clinton jumped over the lowest bar, that of whether she has done anything legally criminal.

Take the email server scandal, for example. I know that if my doctor was that cavalier with my health e-records, he would be fired toot-sweet. And yet with HC, we are talking about making national security information vulnerable to background trespass that she would never know. Hollywood studios have gone after leakers of TV and movie scripts. All those Silicon Valley IT chiefs who supports Clinton ? They know that what she did would have gotten a CTO fired or even sued after termination. The media knows this, and yet not one of them from both camps came out and be intellectually honest with the American people.

 

[T-72]

 

[Akasa]

But if the media does not allocate the equal efforts and resources to investigate HC's unethical, if not outright illegal, acts, then it is a soft rig. So far, as much as it is funny to say this, Fox News seems to be the real journalist in this. But ultimately, because FN is outnumbered, the soft rig is favorable to HC.

Why is 'crazy' deemed more newsworthy than 'unethical' ? In the criminal justice system, being mentally ill will reduce your punishment considerably, but the harshest condemnation from the public will always be for those who are of sound mind and uses his/her intelligence and insider knowledge for personal gains.

We judge someone not on whether he/she is technically guilty but more on intent. If I leer at your little girl, how would you feel being around me, even though I have not done anything technically criminal ? So when the 'mainstream media', aka the MSM in FN-speak, consistently pointed out how HC have not broken any law and sidesteps the ethical trespass, that is a soft rig for her. Likewise, the MSM often pointed out Chump's paying zero taxes, even though seemingly every tax loopholes he used were legal, and insinuate that he enjoys skirting the boundaries of legality, that is a soft rig against him.

Well said.

The media bias surrounding the elections is quite astounding this year, although expected, since Clinton's advisors are known for influencing key individuals of media groups to her favor, if not through blackmail then through coercion.

 

[Major d1]

trums has no trump card. lol

 

[LA se Karachi]

On the one hand, find someone not guilty under the technicalities of the laws and trials often compels observers to minimize moral judgement as well. But on the other hand, just like how bosses of organized crime often 'got off on a technicality' that is equally compelling for people to continue viewing organized crime leaders as cancer of society.

I say the media have an obligation to pursue the issue precisely because the President is supposed to be a person of exceptional moral leadership, not whether what he/she do crosses the criminality line.

Do I have the right to demand the President to be a saint ? Absolutely I have that right. But just because we all falls short of the saintly standards, that does not mean I do not have the right to demand he/she approaches those standards as close as possible. After all, we are talking about the person who occupies that office making decisions that will affect everything in my life, from how much money I can make for my family to whether or not one day mine and your sons may die in a foreign military adventure.

The Bushes are no longer in contention for the White House, but take a look at this book...

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Real-Story-Bush-Dynasty/dp/0385503245

Usually, whenever we see any book about any person of note that have the word 'real' in its title, it is usually not a very flattering reportage. Without any evidence that would stand on its own in a court of law, the Bushes are still under moral suspicions and indictments.

It is fine to beat the dead horse when it comes to the Bushes but not fine for the Clintons ?

It is absolutely fine to beat the dead horse when it comes to both the Bushes and the Clintons. I certainly do, and encourage others to do so too. The two families are similar in more (negative) ways than one. A point that is often lost on some Democrats and liberals. They are both corrupt to the core and have made their money in less than kosher ways.

We are in complete agreement on this particular issue, my friend. I don't like Hillary (or her husband). I was very upset that the media did not continue to cover the emails scandal after the FBI report came out. They should have. I've paid close attention to the issue as a Sanders supporter during the primaries, and what she did was unethical, bordering on criminal. There is no way around it. I was merely saying though that it appeared to come off as beating a dead horse for the media, though it was in fact not. I wasn't suggesting that this should have prevented the media from giving it the attention it deserved. It should not have.

I completely agree with you when you say that we as Americans have every right to demand that our next President has the highest moral standards possible, and is free of corruption. That's what many of us have been saying all along. A family that rakes in tens of millions of dollars through "speaking fees" (more than $100,000 an hour) from investment banks, uses the same tax loopholes they criticize, has questionable ties to foreign entities through their foundation, and have been caught lying many times before are very far from this standard. No doubt about it.

My point was not about Trump and his taxes.

Personally, I do not and have never claimed my charity donations on my tax filings, even though I know it is legal to do so in order to reduce my tax liability. If it turned out the the Lump is not as charitable person as he made himself out to be and that he exploited every possible tax loopholes we have, that will be just another negative moral mark I can use to judge him as a person.

Understood, but I was just trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of Trump when he claims to be a great businessman and the huge loss that he claimed on his 1995 tax return. A loss so large, that he might have avoided paying federal taxes for nearly two decades.

Our disagreement seems to stem from the fact that you seem to think that the media is implying he did something bordering on illegal, while I'm simply stating that the media is giving (deserved) attention to this issue to show the complete failure that he was as a businessman and how he made his money. And when it all went up in flames, he used it to claim an enormous tax write-off, bringing him another huge financial benefit. That's the issue, more so than how much he actually paid in federal taxes:

"On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, often boasts of his success in Atlantic City, of how he outwitted the Wall Street firms that financed his casinos and rode the value of his name to riches. A central argument of his candidacy is that he would bring the same business prowess to the Oval Office, doing for America what he did for his companies."

"But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen."

"In three interviews with The Times since late April, Mr. Trump acknowledged in general terms that high debt and lagging revenues had plagued his casinos. He did not recall details about some issues, but did not question The Times’s findings. He repeatedly emphasized that what really mattered about his time in Atlantic City was that he had made a lot of money there.

Mr. Trump assembled his casino empire by borrowing money at such high interest rates — after telling regulators he would not — that the businesses had almost no chance to succeed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html

My point is that it is hypocritical for the media to focus on Chump's moralities for everything he does while letting Clinton jumped over the lowest bar, that of whether she has done anything legally criminal.

Take the email server scandal, for example. I know that if my doctor was that cavalier with my health e-records, he would be fired toot-sweet. And yet with HC, we are talking about making national security information vulnerable to background trespass that she would never know. Hollywood studios have gone after leakers of TV and movie scripts. All those Silicon Valley IT chiefs who supports Clinton ? They know that what she did would have gotten a CTO fired or even sued after termination. The media knows this, and yet not one of them from both camps came out and be intellectually honest with the American people.

I agree for the most part. Although I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it sound. However, this has been a problem since the primaries. Hillary's indiscretions go largely unnoticed because of the raging lunatic that the media is obsessed over. With that said, has Trump's judgment been any better? Alas, these are the two finalists for our next president.

 

[Major d1]

 

[gambit]

Our disagreement seems to stem from the fact that you seem to think that the media is implying he did something bordering on illegal, while I'm simply stating that the media is giving (deserved) attention to this issue to show the complete failure that he was as a businessman and how he made his money. And when it all went up in flames, he used it to claim an enormous tax write-off, bringing him another huge financial benefit.

Per the highlighted -- I do.

I want a free media, as in free from governmental restraints. Am not talking profanities or sex. You want swearing or BJs ? Get cable TV. I have no problems with that.

What I want is a media free from constraints of political issues. But at the same time, I want a responsible media as well. Just like how I want a President of the highest moral virtues, I want a media that is adversarial or even hostile to the government but is balanced in presenting all sides of an issue, including the government's side.

There are those in the media who takes ethics beyond the acceptable...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-journalists-abstain-from-voting/

ABC News political director Mark Halperin said he does not vote and doesn't think any objective journalist should.

Halperin takes it one step further by asserting that even the act of contemplating a vote damages the ability to be truly objective.

Halperin is neither the first nor unique to abstain from voting while being an active journalist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/should-journalists-vote-yes-no-sometimes-008470

In an online chat on washingtonpost.com in 2004, Downie explained: “I decided to stop voting when I became the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper. I wanted to keep a completely open mind about everything we covered and not make a decision, even in my own mind or the privacy of the voting booth, about who should be president or mayor, for example.”

My take is that if an individual journalist can take his ethics to the extreme, that of self restraint from exercising his Constitutional right, surely a media corporation or even the larger media community can be objective with the same kind of self restraint from being overtly biased.

But that is not what we are seeing today. What Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee did were beyond Watergate but no reporter and newspaper dared, or more accurately, WANTED to prosecute them in the court of public opinion. The lack of that 'want' is troubling.

This is why I am convinced that the media is indeed out to get Trump, not that I have the man in any regard higher than a snake's belly.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Per the highlighted -- I do.

I want a free media, as in free from governmental restraints. Am not talking profanities or sex. You want swearing or BJs ? Get cable TV. I have no problems with that.

What I want is a media free from constraints of political issues. But at the same time, I want a responsible media as well. Just like how I want a President of the highest moral virtues, I want a media that is adversarial or even hostile to the government but is balanced in presenting all sides of an issue, including the government's side.

There are those in the media who takes ethics beyond the acceptable...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-journalists-abstain-from-voting/

Halperin is neither the first nor unique to abstain from voting while being an active journalist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/should-journalists-vote-yes-no-sometimes-008470

My take is that if an individual journalist can take his ethics to the extreme, that of self restraint from exercising his Constitutional right, surely a media corporation or even the larger media community can be objective with the same kind of self restraint from being overtly biased.

But that is not what we are seeing today. What Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee did were beyond Watergate but no reporter and newspaper dared, or more accurately, WANTED to prosecute them in the court of public opinion. The lack of that 'want' is troubling.

This is why I am convinced that the media is indeed out to get Trump, not that I have the man in any regard higher than a snake's belly.

I have to go to bed now. But I will respond to you tomorrow.

 

[forsigmar]

America totally screwed if Hillary becomes president . God help us if a we have a stroke patient in the white house. Special interests and Neocons will destroy the country.

 

[Nilgiri]

Eric Trump does an admirable job against Hillary shill George Step-on-all-of-us

@Desert Fox @T-72 @Darmashkian @boomslang

 

[Darmashkian]

@Nilgiri @Desert Fox @jha
It seems you were right,many of these polls are indeed rigged!

Maybe the Dems don't realise,but such huge margins will only make more Hillary voters overconfident & down on their guard.
While on the other hand with Trump screaming about a rigged election left & right,his people will come out in good nos to attempt to give him an overwhelming victory

Read these links:-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...em-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

Here is one excerpt:-
"
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters." Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first."

Read these links too:-
https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/...ic-pollster-pat-caddell-smells-lot-like-2014/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...l-over-the-place-shock-potential-is-enormous/

Am no Chump supporter, but I have to side with him in this one.

I had discussion with a friend and he pointed out an interesting idea: There are two ways of 'rigging' and election.

The first is the 'hard rig'. This is where you have direct access to the ballot processing system, from the paper to the pencils to the box and all the way to the people tallying the votes.

The second is the 'soft rig'. If you cannot access the balloting system, then your next best method is to change people's minds, in other words, access of information. If you are a journalist, you slant your reporting and/or commentaries. Remember the infamous 'journolist' scandal ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

When the Democratic National Committee worked to remove Bernie Sanders from contention, that was a 'hard rig'. If the President actively campaigns for you, that would be a 'soft rig', and in this case, there is nothing wrong with that.

The American Left and media finally admitted that there is a leftist bent among themselves. The American academia finally had to admit to the same. This is what the Bump is complaining about.

When you vote, there is no challenge to your vote. On the other hand, when you debate, there are challenges between contenders and observers are allowed to make up their minds. There is no challenge in a 'hard rig'. What needed to be done -- will be done in secrecy. In a 'soft rig', challenges are minimized. The challengers' opinions are collectively mocked or even dismissed by those who controls that access to information. Then if sufficient voters are convinced by way of selective information, the rig is successful.

Well said, Sir.

Even if Trump wins more overall votes than Hillary what are his chances of getting the requisite electoral seats ? Isn't that required to win the election ? @Darmashkian @Nilgiri @Desert Fox

This is something that most pollsters don't show ..
These polls on who gets more votes is irrelevant!

What matters is who gets the most Electoral Seats.This election proved that:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000
[Though frankly speaking,in most elections.If you get more votes than the other,it is because you won the required Electoral college seats]

I believe that Trump will get atleast 220+ seats in such a situation,but I'm not counting out a victory.It's still pretty close(the election).But HC has a greater chance of winning!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@RabzonKhan :- I told you a long time back that North Carolina would be a swing state in this election Way before the Media started polling there.

If Arizona & Georgia can become Tossups,then North Carolina would have been one a long,long time back.

Frankly speaking,I think there is a chance that Trump could win Ohio & Florida. But still lose North Carolina!

 

[Desert Fox]

Crooked Hillary's corruption knows no limits, any poll showing Hillary ahead of Trump is most likely rigged. @Nilgiri @Darmashkian @T-72 @RabzonKhan https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551
Wikileaks: Podesta E-Mail Exposes Democrat Playbook to Rig Polls Through Oversampling
​

The Wikileaks e-mail dump of John Podesta’s gmail account keeps getting crazier and crazier. One of the e-mails dumped shows a playbook from a firm named Atlas Project. The e-mail contains an entire blueprint on how a pollster can rig polling data to favor the Democrat candidate on a state by state basis. The polling data is then used specifically as a psychological weapon in the media against the electorate to discourage the voter base of the opponent.

​

And yet they call Trump the conspiracy theorist

 

[CorporateAffairs]

Now, Trump can only win if there is a Brexit style voter turnout which I dont think is possible.

 

[T-72]

Crooked Hillary's corruption knows no limits, any poll showing Hillary ahead of Trump is most likely rigged. @Nilgiri @Darmashkian @T-72 @RabzonKhan

Wikileaks: Podesta E-Mail Exposes Democrat Playbook to Rig Polls Through Oversampling
​

The Wikileaks e-mail dump of John Podesta’s gmail account keeps getting crazier and crazier. One of the e-mails dumped shows a playbook from a firm named Atlas Project. The e-mail contains an entire blueprint on how a pollster can rig polling data to favor the Democrat candidate on a state by state basis. The polling data is then used specifically as a psychological weapon in the media against the electorate to discourage the voter base of the opponent.

That's what I said too, they're running a very sophisticated psy-op to in the media by having all these post game analyses already, particularly true for CNN and MSNBC.

I think they'll 'punch through' the media with middle and middle class 'murrica turnout in overwhelming numbers for him, and if enough commonsense minorities have joined the Trump train, we might even see a tremendous

landslide.

Assange, meanwhile, has been dumping thousands of e-mails every other day which they refuse to talk about but they're slowly chipping away at the narrative. Google showed that a far greater no of people people searched for 'clinton wikileaks' than for 'Trump pussy'

2 weeks to go, far from over, its game on.

 

[anon45]

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138010/no-donald-trump-not-l

Bloomberg/Getty
No, Donald Trump is not losing because of “oversampling.”
On Monday morning, Trump flagged a ZeroHedge story (that had been previously flagged by Matt Drudge) alleging that the reason Trump is down in the polls is because the Clinton campaign conspired to rig polls by “oversampling” Democrats.

This is an outstanding tweet. The double “the,” the use of the third person—top shelf stuff. But it’s also bullshit. Here’s the relevant portion of the WikiLeaks email from Tom Mattzie that ZeroHedge claims is about public polling:

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email is from Clinton’s 2008 campaign, which you may recall did not turn out so well for her. But Mattzie is not talking about the kinds of polls that show Trump is losing big league, to use one of his favorite phrases—those polls are done by pollsters in concert with media outlets. Instead, he’s talking about polling that campaigns do internally to decide how to target voters.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who has an excellent explainer on what is (most likely) going on here, writes: “Mattzie’s talking about polling that’s done by campaigns and political action committees to inform media buys. In other words, before campaigns spend $200,000 on a flight of TV spots, they’ll poll on the messages in those ads and figure out what to say to whom and then target that ad to those people as best they can.” The oversampling portion of the email, Bump goes on to explain, refers to the fact that it’s often difficult to get the right sample sizes: “Normal polling in a state will usually have no problem getting enough white people in the mix to evaluate where they stand, but you may need to specifically target more black or Hispanic voters to get a statistically relevant sample size.” In this instance, Mattzie is probably referring to “Native Americans and Democrat-leaning independents and moderate Republican women.”

Could the polls showing Clinton with a sizable lead be wrong? Sure. But not because they’ve been rigged by the Clinton campaign.
*end*
This is why context is always important. Almost anything can be spun as sinister if you lack context.