2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobby style said:
This sounds like a topic Obama is going to have to seriously deal with, and the next president as well. Would like to hear what the candidates have to say. Seems like the Saudis are on the verge of full on blackmail.

. . . You have to admit, Osama a Saudi from one of their most powerful, well connected families, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, the outrageous amount of Saudi money and support for the exportation of this extremely conservative wahhabi version of Islam, and most suspicious of all, those 28 pages of unreleased material in the 9/11 report that most certainly must contain some damaging evidence against the Saudis.

Hmmm . . .

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sa...-passes-911-bill-exposing-saudi-role-attacks/

Saudi Arabia Threatens to Crash the Dollar if Congress Exposes their Role in 9/11 Attacks

–A bombshell report by the New York Times has revealed that Saudi Arabia, the third largest holder of U.S. Treasury bills in the world behind China and Japan, has warned the Obama administration and Congress that they will begin liquidating their U.S. assets if Congress passes a bill allowing for the Saudi government to be held responsible for their role in the terror attacks of 9/11.

Make no mistake that this is blackmail, as the Saudis are estimated to hold three-quarters of a trillion dollars in T-bills and the sudden divestment would almost certainly crash the dollar as well as global markets along with it.

Perhaps this explains Obama’s unwavering support for the Wahhabi regime, as congressional aides and administration officials have confirmed that the President has been lobbying Congress to block passage of the bill. Administration officials have warned Senators that if the Saudis make good on their threat, there would be extreme economic and diplomatic fallout. (cont)
Click to expand...


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/18/sanders-clinton-support-right-sue-saudi-arabia-911.html

Sanders and Clinton Support of Right of Americans to Sue Saudi Arabia Over 9/11

“The bottom line is that keeping this material classified only strengthens the theory that some in the US government are hellbent on covering up for the Saudis.”

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, to allow Americans to sue foreign governments for terrorism: in particular, Saudi Arabia for its role in the 9/11 attacks:

The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.

Saudi Arabia says if it is passed, economic reprisals will follow. President Obama doesn’t want to see the bill pass. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have announced their support for the bill.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
(cont)
 
Hal9000 said:
Don't think so, he's drawing in huge number but as it's a closed primary so he's at a disadvantage because he draws well with independents and dem leaning independents, but only registered democrats can vote.

Also the NY registration closed some time last year, so a lot of his new supporters couldn't register to vote. Bernie was virtually unknown and about 60 points down when the registration closed.

Not to mention, as with other primaries, there has been a large number of people finding there registration has been changed, and i believe someone is trying to raise an injunction over that.

I think he'll lose by double digits unfortunately. Anything less than that is a great result, anything close to an equal split is a miracle.
Click to expand...


you are right. It will be difficult for Bernie to get even single digit behind Hillary because NY is a closed primary. The only hope he is converting people who have not made up their minds yet. People who may be voting for Hillary based on name recognition. She offers nothing. So this may convert them.
 
Common Sense with Dan Carlin podcast alluded to the 'closed nature' of these elections, and how difficult it is with Ballot laws for outsiders to get a look in. Sanders, for all his credentials as an outsider has at least 25 years of political experience and he still faces insurmountable problems with the nominations being driven by the party. This doesn't even consider some transparent attempts by Republicans to block Trump. It's a great listen and he makes a point that while these laws have always existed, this is probably the first time when they have received so much scrutiny and the 'average american' is taking a close look. He believes this will do the country a lot of good in the long run, even if it is a fiasco right now.
 
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-dnc-primary-moderates/

FL-2.png


FL-1.png
 
That poll didn't consider, for example, the fact that health insurance costs would now be 0. It was presented purely as additional spending (like it has been consistently in most media outlets).

It's still an amazing number and not one I would have expected given the discussions we've had before. It means the argument "tax-and-spend" now has to be refined and may not be enough in itself.
 
Eriku said:
This is too funny...
Anybody wanna tell me how WaPo aren't trying their hardest to find stuff to throw at Bernie?
Click to expand...

Nikhil said:
Washington Post are a joke of a paper. They bring out 5-6 anti Bernie articles at a time. The pro Billary bias is sickening.
Click to expand...

It's not the WaPo, it's you. Just like Republicans, who for years have railed against bias because the media didn't cover stories the way they wanted them to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sitive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/
 
Hal9000 said:
I don't think they can say 16 stories about Michigan proves they are not biased.

WPSanders.jpg




Even look at today's joke of an article. Look at how much effort that reporter went through to prove the real average donation.. $27.89 :lol:
Click to expand...


It's not uncommon for papers to do stories like this and for supporters to go on butt hurt rants about why outlet x or y are biased against their candidate. It's just part of politics. Now, if you were to say Foxnews have an anti-Obama and Clinton editorial bias, then you may have a point.
 
Raoul said:
It's not the WaPo, it's you. Just like Republicans, who for years have railed against bias because the media didn't cover stories the way they wanted them to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sitive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?! "Bernie caught lying, says his avg. contribution is 27 bucks, which is $1.89 lower than the actual number!!!!!" doesn't strike you as an absolutely ridiculously desperate idiot piece of journalism that could only be conjured up by someone desperate to make a hit-piece of some kind?

To me this could very much serve as the dictionary definition of reaching.
 
Eriku said:
Are you kidding me?! "Bernie caught lying, says his avg. contribution is 27 bucks, which is $1.89 lower than the actual number!!!!!" doesn't strike you as an absolutely ridiculously desperate idiot piece of journalism that could only be conjured up by someone desperate to make a hit-piece of some kind?

To me this could very much serve as the dictionary definition of reaching.
Click to expand...

Papers do provocative clickbaitish pieces all the time. The only difference here is that the observer (you) is offended that it challenged your beloved candidate. We've heard stuff like this from the Republicans for decades.
 
Raoul said:
Papers do provocative clickbaitish pieces all the time. The only difference here is that the observer (you) are offended that it challenged your beloved candidate. We've heard stuff like this from the Republicans for decades.
Click to expand...

The Republicans aren't WaPo.

Whatever... If you say my bias is showing, allow me to return to sender, and let's leave it at that.
 
Eriku said:
The Republicans aren't WaPo.

Whatever... If you say my bias is showing, allow me to return to sender, and let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Consider the absurdity of it all - the Washington Post, a widely held Liberal leaning paper attempting to bring down a progressive candidate so its corporate master can promote their candidate of choice instead. Brilliant stuff.
 
Raoul said:
Consider the absurdity of it all - the Washington Post, a widely held Liberal leaning paper attempting to bring down a progressive candidate so its corporate master can promote their candidate of choice instead. Brilliant stuff.
Click to expand...

They are liberal by the US framed standards, which the media heavily contributes to. Would you really say that the liberal media, like MSNBC, CNN, NYT and so on are in Bernie's corner? I mean, Hillary could just as easily be framed as a liberal in the US left-right system, which I would disagree with. Bernie's offering the first true left-ish option in ages.
 
Raoul said:
Consider the absurdity of it all - the Washington Post, a widely held Liberal leaning paper attempting to bring down a progressive candidate so its corporate master can promote their candidate of choice instead. Brilliant stuff.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't ascribe motives but they've been running some very absurd stories. There are always unspoken biases in every newsroom. Maybe they truly believe she is the only viable candidate and are trying to push her (which isn't good journalism). Maybe they believe he has been unfairly given a free pass by everyone else (which is a valid reason IMO).

But certainly they've been reaching.
 
Eriku said:
They are liberal by the US framed standards, which the media heavily contributes to. Would you really say that the liberal media, like MSNBC, CNN, NYT and so on are in Bernie's corner? I mean, Hillary could just as easily be framed as a liberal in the US left-right system, which I would disagree with. Bernie's offering the first true left-ish option in ages.
Click to expand...

That's correct. We don't care about European or Asian standards here. This entire debate is strictly endogeneous to American politics. The lame stream media with their gotcha questions aren't promoting any candidate, they are asking tough questions to both sides. In Bernie's case, its important that his policies receive at least as much scrutiny (if not more) than Hillary's, since they would be significantly more transformative than your average status quo candidate.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
On the subject of negative media coverage...

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders
Click to expand...

Their final list — which includes the Washington Post, Politico, Fox News, the Huffington Post, and CNN — looks like a fairly conventional ranking of the biggest media players1.
Click to expand...

This would explain it. Fox News would account for half the negative Hillarys, and HuffPo for the positive Bernies.

The "bias" argument is made against: CNN (primarily ignoring), WaPo (negative), NYT (switched from mocking to negative), MSNBC (ignore/negative depending on host).

WaPo has named her the winner of every sinle debate btw, including Miami and Brooklyn.
 
berbatrick said:
This would explain it. Fox News would account for half the negative Hillarys, and HuffPo for the positive Bernies.

The "bias" argument is made against: CNN (primarily ignoring), WaPo (negative), NYT (switched from mocking to negative), MSNBC (ignore/negative depending on host).

WaPo has named her the winner of every sinle debate btw, including Miami and Brooklyn.
Click to expand...

I rarely venture onto Fox, be it the channel or their website, but I spend considerable time on WaPo, NYT, Politico and they have run plenty of negative stories about Hillary, especially with click-bait titles, the last in particular since they have a somewhat of a right wing slant (they've run a few op-eds by GOP candidates). To blanket say that Fox accounts for half the stories is I'd say inaccurate, since HuffPo led by H.A.Goodman did plenty of frankly pathetic hit job by themselves.

Bernie fans keep missing the point that it'd make no difference for the media whether he or Clinton wins. If anything, a Sanders win would drive traffic even more, hence the pushing of the 'momentum' bullshit in the last month of so to create the illusion of a horse race. They are sure as hell not afraid of 4 years of Sanders, it's just business as usual for them. They are driven by what they are always driven by, ratings. Given that to date, Sanders received the third most coverage out of any candidate in the race, it's hardly a 'shut-out' as often propagated here or other Bernie-hubs.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I rarely venture onto Fox, be it the channel or their website, but I spend considerable time on WaPo, NYT, Politico and they have run plenty of negative stories about Hillary, especially with click-bait titles, the last in particular since they have a somewhat of a right wing slant (they've run a few op-eds by GOP candidates). To blanket say that Fox accounts for half the stories is I'd say inaccurate, since HuffPo led by H.A.Goodman did plenty of frankly pathetic hit job by themselves.

Bernie fans keep missing the point that it'd make no difference for the media whether he or Clinton wins. If anything, a Sanders win would drive traffic even more, hence the pushing of the 'momentum' bullshit in the last month of so to create the illusion of a horse race. They are sure as hell not afraid of 4 years of Sanders, it's just business as usual for them. They are driven by what they are always driven by, ratings. Given that to date, Sanders received the third most coverage out of any candidate in the race, it's hardly a 'shut-out' as often propagated here or other Bernie-hubs.
Click to expand...


I was obviously not being accurate with half. Still, it's fair to say Fox would rather take part in a pride parade then run a positive Clinton story.
I read politico too, they are slightly right-wing but I see their perspective as the "purest" and most amoral. They'd treat Hitler with as much scrutiny as Jill Stein. And the scrutiny would be about campaign effectiveness not policy implications.

HuffPo is largely pro-Bernie, though they have an infinite number of columnists. Vox and NPR are Hillary HQ with a few exceptions.


TV is the problem. They did ignore Bernie till roughly Iowa (I cba to dig up the graph). CNN is largely pro-Hillary, as is MSNBC (Chris Mathews being the prime example). The sold-out Republican on MSNBC is their Sanders guy. Fox still dismisses him as "the 74 year-old socialist" (of course they do worse to her).
 
berbatrick said:
TV is the problem. They did ignore Bernie till roughly Iowa (I cba to dig up the graph). CNN is largely pro-Hillary, as is MSNBC (Chris Mathews being the prime example). The sold-out Republican on MSNBC is their Sanders guy. Fox still dismisses him as "the 74 year-old socialist" (of course they do worse to her).
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it be fair to chalk it up to the rise of Trump? In any other year, an upstart who draws YUUGE crowd would receive plenty of attention early on, but why would CNN or MSNBC cover him this cycle instead of a phenomenon like Trump, who not only draws big crowd, but also is a well-known figure, and comes out with shocking, headline-ready comments by the hour? Look at TheAtlantic tracking poll, he received double the coverage of Clinton. Would you think it possible at the beginning?

Could the media do a better job, give a more even-handed treatment of Bernie? In an ideal world, yes. But this is the real world, and a underdog in order to claim equal representation must show that he has the ability to actually win, or be Trump-lite. Given that his campaign effectively ended a month and a half ago demographically/mathematically, it's a hard sell to have the media cover him positively. Everybody likes a winner.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Could the media do a better job, give a more even-handed treatment of Bernie? In an ideal world, yes. But this is the real world, and a underdog in order to claim equal representation must show that he has the ability to actually win, or be Trump-lite. Given that his campaign effectively ended a month and a half ago demographically/mathematically, it's a hard sell to have the media cover him positively. Everybody likes a winner.
Click to expand...


That's contradictory. They covered Trump because ratings. Surely they should cover Sanders more now because "Hillary is inevitable" is boring? (And they have).


I just wish Jon Stewart was still around. He would have attacked Sanders, but the stuff he did on Clinton at the start of her campaign was brutal; he touched issues no other Dem/liberal, certainly not Sanders, wanted to talk about.
 
berbatrick said:
That's contradictory. They covered Trump because ratings. Surely they should cover Sanders more now because "Hillary is inevitable" is boring? (And they have).


I just wish Jon Stewart was still around. He would have attacked Sanders, but the stuff he did on Clinton at the start of her campaign was brutal; he touched issues no other Dem/liberal, certainly not Sanders, wanted to talk about.
Click to expand...

I mean at the beginning. There were plenty of 'the end is nigh', '08 deja vu' for Clinton after Iowa and New Hampshire, but it all ceased after March 1. Now they are covering Sanders more, when the race is basically a foregone conclusion. How many times do you actually see them challenge the Sanders camp when they make the argument about momentum or superdelegates?

Agreed on Jon. I'd give my left nut (not really :nervous:) to have him covered this cycle. It'd actually be healthy, because a truly balanced, critical voice of the left can make uniting the two camps easier down the line. Now they are just shouting past each other.

Edit:



:lol:
 
Last edited:
bah, they are making so many speeches that the odd slip is inevitable. I think Trump is actually an excellent speaker. He connects well with his audience and little of it is written for him.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I mean at the beginning. There were plenty of 'the end is nigh', '08 deja vu' for Clinton after Iowa and New Hampshire, but it all ceased after March 1. Now they are covering Sanders more, when the race is basically a foregone conclusion. How many times do you actually see them challenge the Sanders camp when they make the argument about momentum or superdelegates?

Agreed on Jon. I'd give my left nut (not really :nervous:) to have him covered this cycle. It'd actually be healthy, because a truly balanced, critical voice of the left can make uniting the two camps easier down the line. Now they are just shouting past each other.
Click to expand...


But they don't really challenge anybody on anything.

Trump on his wall should have been a disqualifying issue the way John Oliver explained it. Cruz with the gold standard. Kasich's abortion comments are known by nobody.
And with Clinton (the non-Fox media):
her Clinton foundation shenanigans have been buried under the email coverage. The fact that her college tuition plan is exactly the same as the current one. Her healthcare statements are a reversal of her own position, she is explciitly anti-universal healthcare now. She does not support Roe v Wade fully yet in the closing of the debate made an effective pitch about SCOTUS using Roe v Wade. No one, including Planned Parenthood, has said anything about this. Her reversal on gay marriage was restricted to two questions, by Maddow and Cooper. Worldwide support for fracking as SoS while now saying she'll restrict it. She said Obama was being influenced by lobbyists in 2008. She says she isn't in 2016. Her Libya misadventure only got attention when Obama spoke, and she deflected back to him. That, though was not highlighted. Can you imagine the field day the press would have had if Bernie made another critical nose about Obama? She hasn't been challenged on the origin of the birther movement (which propelled Trump to the big stage). None of these have been highlighted. Her utter failure over universal healthcare (why was she the most qualified person in the Clinton admin to push for it?), her utter failure in regulating Wall Street (the bills with no co-sponsors), her Latin American shitshow (the article I posted was horrendous)...not been challenged. The issues that have been highlighted in the media have been due to BLM protests and her own feck-ups in response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.