Discussion: U.S. Election 2016 - Page 1063

Dessy Fenix

Quote:

Originally posted by NE.

Just being hypothetical, but if Hillary were to clunk out before elections, could Bernie be a replacement nominee?

Could he even make it on the ballots as a replacement or independent at this point?

Rusty

Quote:

Originally posted by Damien M

I'm so glad i'm not white. That sunburn on his nose

He has rosacea.

Beautiful Liar

Gary Johnson is polling around 15% in swing states NC and OH

and in blue and red non swing states this candidate can be a threat and a upset if allowed in the debates

Benzene

Quote:

Originally posted by Beautiful Liar

Gary Johnson is polling around 15% in swing states NC and OH

and in blue and red non swing states this candidate can be a threat and a upset if allowed in the debates

He won't be, and all of these polls were before he was dragged for Aleppo-gate.

Jacketh

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Blackout

Lol what bias? She won the popular vote against a juggernaut like Obama. What makes you think she'd need to rig anything to win over Bernie? The bernieorbusts are so deluded.
Not to mention she was doing exceptionally well in the polls until CNN, NYT and FOX started obsessing over her foundation. Just read this:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/05...ets-gored.html

I'm not saying the media make in painfully obvious that they're for Clinton. I'm not saying that she NEEDED the media, or that she didn't deserve to win the popular vote. I didn't say anything like that, and I certainly am not a bernieorbust person - so thank you for that.

All channels do want to make the race interesting, of course they do - they do it for their ratings. But the vast majority of them are owned by people who will be making money out of Wall Street or in some way benefit from preserving the status quo. It is the same over here in the UK - there was an attempt at balance reporting because if its too obvious, it brings criticism. But all stations were overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining in the EU.

There is a difference between endorsing and making it obvious, and acting favorably to one candidate or party. CNN absolutely does the latter for Clinton. There has been a number of examples of this and you can look for yourself. Ultimately, Time Warner owns CNN. Time Warner is one of Clinton's highest donors. This doesn't mean that they refuse to offer any balance - they do. But they do things with a tilt for Clinton, and this will become more obvious over the next couple of months. It is exactly the same over here with Sky News. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, clearly favour the Conservative Party, but they still rightfully criticise when necessary.

Lord Blackout

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacketh

I'm not saying the media make in painfully obvious that they're for Clinton. I'm not saying that she NEEDED the media, or that she didn't deserve to win the popular vote. I didn't say anything like that, and I certainly am not a bernieorbust person - so thank you for that.

All channels do want to make the race interesting, of course they do - they do it for their ratings. But the vast majority of them are owned by people who will be making money out of Wall Street or in some way benefit from preserving the status quo. It is the same over here in the UK - there was an attempt at balance reporting because if its too obvious, it brings criticism. But all stations were overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining in the EU.

There is a difference between endorsing and making it obvious, and acting favorably to one candidate or party. CNN absolutely does the latter for Clinton. There has been a number of examples of this and you can look for yourself. Ultimately, Time Warner owns CNN. Time Warner is one of Clinton's highest donors. This doesn't mean that they refuse to offer any balance - they do. But they do things with a tilt for Clinton, and this will become more obvious over the next couple of months. It is exactly the same over here with Sky News. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, clearly favour the Conservative Party, but they still rightfully criticise when necessary.

Please! The medias make a big deal out of every email leak or foundation scandal. They spend days discussing them. They only obsess with something Trump related when he says something racist, xenophobic or sexist. But by now, we all know America is full of subhuman uneducated folks who could care less about that. Did they spend days dissecting his foundation fraud? Did they spend days analyzing Melania's immigration past? Do they even bring up the fact that deleting email evidence is not foreign to him? Do they bring up his countless corruption cases on TV every single day? Do they point out the hypocrisy of his middle class speech considering he made a career out of crushing middle class folks? Of course not! For God's sake, they spent two days discussing Bill Clinton donating HIS OWN PENSION MONEY to his foundation. The headlines on TV were basically "Bill uses people's taxmoney on foundation". They spent days discussing the case of a man who donated to the foundation and got a meeting with Hillary after which, guess what, he didn't get what he was there for. They only spend days on Trump when he says something offensive. That's it. Hillary is always the corrupt one who can't be trusted. So miss me with this evidence you're speaking of. There might be pro-Clinton journalists but they do not get to decide what's actually going to be on the news. At most, they get a column on the website. Trump is the one who donated money to CNN's CEO's wife. Trump is the one who has editors and journalists working for his campaign. Trump is the one who has media people running his campaign.

Lord Blackout

Trump has fully embraced conspiracists and propagandists in an unprecedented manner for a presidential candidate. His campaign has played it very dirty.

Wonderland

I honestly hate media discussions so much.

Every damn side calls them biased and then when independent research is conducted there's always found to be no bias or a very small bias despite all the conspiracy theories. At least that's the case here where I live.

Lord Blackout

Quote:

Originally posted by Wonderland

I honestly hate media discussions so much.

Every damn side calls them biased and then when independent research is conducted there's always found to be no bias or a very small bias despite all the conspiracy theories. At least that's the case here.

Difference is Trumpkins called it bias when the medias showed footage of Trump asking gun owners to take care of Hillary, asking for a total shutdown on Muslims, calling all illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists etc. We call it bias when the medias spend months and days discussing the Clinton Foundation "raising questions" without reporting on the answers to those questions. It's always "what he meant was" with Trump and always "There is no direct evidence that supports this narrative" with Hillary.