[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Sommerswerd]

Well, if you're okay with the press being a secret wing of the government, I guess finding out that the winning candidate is the one who cheated isn't going to bother you.

What do you mean by "secret"? FOX News is obviously the media arm of the Republican party... so much so that they took it upon themselves this cycle to determine the method and the means to winnow down the Republican field with their debate stage rules... which ironically only helped to fuel Trump's meteoric rise. FOX News knew clearly who they were and what their role was ... and they accepted their responsibility to choose the Republican candidates with relish.

The media is already operating as wings of the government, and they have already picked which party they serve. There is nothing secret about it. Are you saying you want them to stop doing that and be more "objective" and "fair"?

 

[Sommerswerd]

To put a finer point on it... as I think this is really what is underlying this exchange... If Republican ideologies and policies are wrong, damaging and dangerous for our country, then a truly fair and objective media would be serving the public by harshly critiquing the Republicans as objectively worse in virtually every measurable way, and helping the Democrats. We can complain that the media needs to help "raise the standards" we hold politicians accountable to, but this tends to just lead us back down the path of false equivalence. If the reality is that "Trickle down economics" is a far greater and more important threat to America than "cheating on the debate", then if the media needs to choose which evil to stamp out, then its should not undermine the goal of defeating "trickle down economics" by getting sidetracked into arguing about "cheating on the debate". If pandering to the Klan is a practice that needs to absolutely be stopped at all costs, then there is no objective or fair way to cover a candidate/party that panders to the Klan, other than to condemn and undermine them with every fiber of your being. If the Republican ideology/policy positions are potentially destructive to the country, the media's role of serving the public is fulfilled by opposing the Republican's vigorously, regardless of whether conservatives/Republicans regard it as "fair". If Conservative/Republican ideology damages the country, then to the extent that the media does everything it can to make sure that the Republicans and Trump lose, it is doing its job. However, if you lean conservative, you don't want to hear this... you want the Democrats to be criticized and to the extent that the media fails to do so, you will see them as unfair and biased. The media has a liberal bias, because as the saying goes, "the truth has a liberal bias."

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Sommerwerd: I like the way you have spelt this out. It is an interesting argument that has merit.

 

[metalhead]

It's also a tough spot, dealing with a leak (politically). Chances are, there are some zingers that have been doctored by the person who released them or who provided them ... it's very likely.

So, if you point out that any specific story is doctored (by providing evidence), then you are implicitly stating all the ones you don't dispute aren't doctored. Now, for the sake of honesty, we'd want them to copt to any true story. But it's not something we'd expect.

Trump had the same problem, by announcing he'd 'disprove' the assault allegations. By presenting subpar evidence, he's implicitly suggesting that the other claims are true. I mean, we should all know that a certain percentage of the claims will be either exaggerated or false. But by accepting the burden of 'proving a negative' like he did, he's setting himself up for a fall.

OTOH, we shouldn't fall for the converse. Just because some of the wikileaks and assault claims are discredited, it doesn't mean that all of them all false. The trick is to watch the stories around the most credible claims and the most damning claims. Honestly, I find the cheating on debate questions to be beyond the pale of ethics, especially because it discredits too many important institutions. And the People writer's claim of being assaulted by a serial adulterer is also proving to be credible.

Most of the leaked emails lack needed context, without which they likely would not meet any reasonable journalistic standard for publishing as fact.

Much more importantly, Julian Assange is frustratingly opaque about his sources and his editorial decisionmaking for someone supposedly obsessed with transparency. The fact that some also appear to be doctored only further diminishes how much stock we should place in them.

That and Assange's badly overselling what we have seen so far kind of make it impossible to put any stock in any part of them as something legitimately damning. It also makes any one piece such as the debate question thing easy to be deflected by an experienced hack like Donna Brazile.

 

[innonimatu]

It's also a tough spot, dealing with a leak (politically). Chances are, there are some zingers that have been doctored by the person who released them or who provided them ... it's very likely.

So, if you point out that any specific story is doctored (by providing evidence), then you are implicitly stating all the ones you don't dispute aren't doctored. Now, for the sake of honesty, we'd want them to copt to any true story. But it's not something we'd expect.

Trump had the same problem, by announcing he'd 'disprove' the assault allegations. By presenting subpar evidence, he's implicitly suggesting that the other claims are true. I mean, we should all know that a certain percentage of the claims will be either exaggerated or false. But by accepting the burden of 'proving a negative' like he did, he's setting himself up for a fall.

OTOH, we shouldn't fall for the converse. Just because some of the wikileaks and assault claims are discredited, it doesn't mean that all of them all false. The trick is to watch the stories around the most credible claims and the most damning claims. Honestly, I find the cheating on debate questions to be beyond the pale of ethics, especially because it discredits too many important institutions. And the People writer's claim of being assaulted by a serial adulterer is also proving to be credible.

Take the leaked emails. In mainstream media you will find just an echo chamber of the "damage control" done by team Clinton to discredit them. If you look elsewhere you'd find people checking the veracity of those leaks. Read this, for example:
Yes, we can validate the Wikileaks emails
Not all, but the most recent ones from her staff. Short story: they're signed by the mail servers they originated from. And the signature covers both the body and the from address. You can verify those signatures if you suspect they were in any way "doctored", if you wish. So far no one found any doctored emails. Of course if one had Google's private key from that server they could have been forged... but no one has claimed that "the Russians harked it". The Clinton team hasn't had to resort to that yet, it's instead relying on its friends in the media to leave the question of whether the emails were doctored in the air.

At least Trump lies in an obvious way. Clinton is more insidious. But not much harder to catch, really.

 

[metalhead]

So misinformation has been a key part of Russian psyops for forever, but we should believe all of these emails are legit because some are verifiable?

I'm not buying it. I mean, I'm sure plenty of them are legit and it's not like anything that big is even in there. But I'm not going to toss my skepticism just because the target is someone I don't like. That would be absurd.

That being said, some transparency from Assange might make it easier to accept that these things are all legit.

 

[tetley]

I find this move rather audacious.

Russia requests to observe U.S. election day

 

[El_Machinae]

So misinformation has been a key part of Russian psyops for forever, but we should believe all of these emails are legit because some are verifiable?

I'm not buying it. I mean, I'm sure plenty of them are legit and it's not like anything that big is even in there. But I'm not going to toss my skepticism just because the target is someone I don't like. That would be absurd.

That being said, some transparency from Assange might make it easier to accept that these things are all legit.

It's not a reason to accept the unverifiable documents. It's a reason to label her a liar

 

[Lexicus]

Show me a politician who's not a liar, and I'll show you a dupe.

 

[onejayhawk]

To put a finer point on it... as I think this is really what is underlying this exchange... If Republican ideologies and policies are wrong, damaging and dangerous for our country, then a truly fair and objective media would be serving the public by harshly critiquing the Republicans as objectively worse in virtually every measurable way, and helping the Democrats. We can complain that the media needs to help "raise the standards" we hold politicians accountable to, but this tends to just lead us back down the path of false equivalence. If the reality is that "Trickle down economics" is a far greater and more important threat to America than "cheating on the debate", then if the media needs to choose which evil to stamp out, then its should not undermine the goal of defeating "trickle down economics" by getting sidetracked into arguing about "cheating on the debate". If pandering to the Klan is a practice that needs to absolutely be stopped at all costs, then there is no objective or fair way to cover a candidate/party that panders to the Klan, other than to condemn and undermine them with every fiber of your being. If the Republican ideology/policy positions are potentially destructive to the country, the media's role of serving the public is fulfilled by opposing the Republican's vigorously, regardless of whether conservatives/Republicans regard it as "fair". If Conservative/Republican ideology damages the country, then to the extent that the media does everything it can to make sure that the Republicans and Trump lose, it is doing its job. However, if you lean conservative, you don't want to hear this... you want the Democrats to be criticized and to the extent that the media fails to do so, you will see them as unfair and biased. The media has a liberal bias, because as the saying goes, "the truth has a liberal bias."

I call BS. I give you it's an interesting argument, but it presupposes a populous that cannot or will not think for itself. If there is a more destructive way to treat the Constitution, I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I do not think that is what you want to say, but that is the road you chose. Remember, the Praetorian Guard began as simple watchdogs.

J

 

[Kozmos]

The populous thinks for itself? That's rather laughable, voter participation records are abysmally low when you consider the stakes and informed voters are even fewer in number. Add to that human brains are political by their very wiring and that studies conducted showed even when corrected on basic facts, voters could not acknowledge any reality but their preconceived own and you have a good explanation why the patricians play the masses so easily.

 

[tetley]

There are two sides to it.

"Mob rule is bad, so we will do them a favor, deceive them, and rule over them."

and...

A lot of the populace just doesn't pay attention, doesn't care, doesn't vote, doesn't educate themselves on the candidates. Does that undermine democracy? You bet it does. And it's the people's own doggone fault.

But you've got to admit, there's some truth to it. Like when I get my ballot...the presidential candidates I know, but who are these people running for school board? Do I vote for the guy on top? The guy who seems to have the prettiest name? The one whose signs I saw the most times on the road? Or if I get really educated...the guy whose platform on paper I like? I know nothing about these guys; my kids don't even go to school there. My taxes do; my kids don't.

 

[Kyriakos]

At least the white house spokesperson comes across as both knowing what he is talking about, and honest.

/joking

I think the worst in all this is that a convicted felon was working for the dem party at such high level. Meeting Obama tens of times in the white house? Isn't that more Cheney-style?

 

[FriendlyFire]

How nice of Trump, though iam not sure what hes supporters are going to do with hundred of thousands of Trump books

Donald Trump and his supporters have been caught out in a series of fundraising scandals

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post has revealed that Mr Trump used donation money from his supporters to purchase nearly $300,000 worth of his own books, in order to generate royalty payments he could pocket for himself.

Key figures involved with the Great America PAC, an independent committee that actively supports the Republican candidate for president, sought to channel $2 million from a supposed Chinese donor into the campaign, The Telegraph reported on Monday.

In August this year, The Daily Beast reported Trump had similarly paid Barnes & Noble over $55,000 in donor money

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/9264bc2210b4d2488d79365edd3a2345

 

[metalhead]

It's not a reason to accept the unverifiable documents. It's a reason to label her a liar

I mean, OK, if that's what floats your boat. I'm not sure what all of these egregious and terrible lies are that we're supposed to be up in arms about. It's tiring to have to constantly point out in response to these "liar" charges that fact checkers find her among the most honest of all politicians, but I guess we should instead seize on a few emails, taken out of context, to brand her whatever we want instead of trying to make some effort and objectivity and fairness. When they aren't even her emails.

This is the whole problem. The leaked emails aren't a reason to do anything, because they are presenting a slanted view and an incomplete picture. They are being released in a very odd way of a small number each day, with no apparent rhyme or reason to the selection process. This not only makes it harder to verify them, it makes it impossible to put them in any kind of context. Context, as I'm sure you are aware, is necessary in order to establish whether or not someone is lying. So of course it's not proper to take any of the emails as evidence of lying. Lying requires a motive to deceive. Having a public and a private position on issues does not in any way suggest an intent to deceive. You know how I know? Her public and private positions on Wall St. regulation actually agree with one another.

 

[Bootstoots]

There are two sides to it.

"Mob rule is bad, so we will do them a favor, deceive them, and rule over them."

and...

A lot of the populace just doesn't pay attention, doesn't care, doesn't vote, doesn't educate themselves on the candidates. Does that undermine democracy? You bet it does. And it's the people's own doggone fault.

But you've got to admit, there's some truth to it. Like when I get my ballot...the presidential candidates I know, but who are these people running for school board? Do I vote for the guy on top? The guy who seems to have the prettiest name? The one whose signs I saw the most times on the road? Or if I get really educated...the guy whose platform on paper I like? I know nothing about these guys; my kids don't even go to school there. My taxes do; my kids don't.

This is why I always vote absentee, by mail. Rules very by state, but in Illinois you can get an absentee ballot with no excuses required. Then when I get the ballot, I look up all the candidates running for local office and the ballot issues in order to make at least a semi-informed decision. I'm a grad student and rarely know what's going on in local politics. I already voted earlier this month. I knew I was going to vote for Stein for president and Dems for Senate (a likely D pickup), House, and both houses of the state legislature, but I didn't know anything about the races further downballot than that, or any ballot issue.

So, for instance, I looked up a proposed constitutional amendment to earmark funds from gasoline taxes and vehicle fees to be used for infrastructure spending only, without allowing lawmakers to use those for other purposes. I can think of arguments for or against that, but overall what I found was that this is generally a good idea (Illinois politics being what it is), so I voted for it. I was initially for a local sales tax increase, but it turned out that it was only there to enlarge the county jail and there were decent arguments for why this was unnecessary, so I voted against it. The only Republican I voted for in a contested race was the coroner (only in America would this be an elected position ), because I saw he was the incumbent and people were generally satisfied with him. And in general I think slicing up bodies is a good job for Republicans to have.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, OK, if that's what floats your boat. I'm not sure what all of these egregious and terrible lies are that we're supposed to be up in arms about. It's tiring to have to constantly point out in response to these "liar" charges that fact checkers find her among the most honest of all politicians, but I guess we should instead seize on a few emails, taken out of context, to brand her whatever we want instead of trying to make some effort and objectivity and fairness. When they aren't even her emails.

This is the whole problem. The leaked emails aren't a reason to do anything, because they are presenting a slanted view and an incomplete picture. They are being released in a very odd way of a small number each day, with no apparent rhyme or reason to the selection process. This not only makes it harder to verify them, it makes it impossible to put them in any kind of context. Context, as I'm sure you are aware, is necessary in order to establish whether or not someone is lying. So of course it's not proper to take any of the emails as evidence of lying. Lying requires a motive to deceive. Having a public and a private position on issues does not in any way suggest an intent to deceive. You know how I know? Her public and private positions on Wall St. regulation actually agree with one another.

The liar is that DNC staffer. Name starts with a D. She's implicated as being both proactive in the cheating and in lying to cover it up. I can be mad at Clinton for accepting corruption in her campaign. But the person who did it gets actively despised

 

[onejayhawk]

At least the white house spokesperson comes across as both knowing what he is talking about, and honest.

/joking

I think the worst in all this is that a convicted felon was working for the dem party at such high level. Meeting Obama tens of times in the white house? Isn't that more Cheney-style?

Veritas means truth. So does Pravda.

The worst is that they have an unconvicted felon running for President

The populous thinks for itself? That's rather laughable, voter participation records are abysmally low when you consider the stakes and informed voters are even fewer in number. Add to that human brains are political by their very wiring and that studies conducted showed even when corrected on basic facts, voters could not acknowledge any reality but their preconceived own and you have a good explanation why the patricians play the masses so easily.

What point are you trying to make? You seem to be advocating that the media choose our political officeholders.

J

 

[tetley]

Thinly-veiled party politics at it again. One person "lies" about some technicality and should go to jail for it. Another has 11 counts of sexual assault that are "technically not illegal". Tax evasion that is "your fault for making it legal".

We saw all this same BS with the UN arms inspections in Iraq leading up to the war. Look how that turned out.

 

[El_Machinae]

The sexual assault thing is interesting. By lambasting those women, he's restarted the clock on libel torts. The Statute of Limitations for the sexual assault may have lapsed, but now they can seek redress for libel.

There will definitely need to be some cleaning in the FBI. Clinton isn't the person to do it, 'cause of conflict of interest. You'll need Congress to do it.