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

[metalhead]

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

Once again, though, a conclusion that requires more evidence. The email only says, "I get questions ahead of time from time to time." No indication it was specifically talking about debate questions. The email in question is written in such a way to indicate perhaps there were other discussions going on at the time which might indicate what they are actually talking about, but of course because this is WikiLeaks we are talking about, they're just publishing stuff without paying any mind to context so that people can just fill in their own facts as they wish.

You've filled in the blanks that the email was about cheating. The only evidence we have is the email itself. CNN has issued a statement that they do not share town hall questions with anyone before. Brazile has denied it. WikiLeaks has done nothing to try to provide context, or any other information regarding this other than the email itself. People have, of course, jumped to the conclusion they hoped people would jump to, but that may not actually be justified by the email itself.

 

[Kozmos]

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

J

I'm saying the outcome is already determined by popular myths that have been bred into the population by each persons ingroup. Democracy symbolically works, but is mechanically non-functional at such large scales due to our wiring.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-most-depressing-discovery-about-the-brain-ever/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

http://grist.org/politics/science-confirms-politics-wrecks-your-ability-to-do-math/

 

[tetley]

Hillary's getting the snot Wikileaked out of her emails. If she takes steps to keep them private, it's, "oh, no government accountability! She's not following protocol! Arrest her!". And if she does whatever " official" method she's supposed to do, good ole Washington kicks in, and mysteriously all her emails show up in Russia, Sweden, the Republican campaign HQ, and the rest of the world.

It's a classic setup. Darned if you do, and danged if you don't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) "it-was-just-talk-it-never-happened-plus-it-happened-so-long-ago-why-you-bringin'-up-old-squeeze?" perspective.

2) "She peeked at the debate questions!" Really? C'mon, who cares...

1) He did another version of this two-incompatible-defenses with the most recent accuser. She's been in adult films. His line: "Her story is a complete fabrication. And anyway, she's used to getting grabbed."

2) I know the questions she supposedly had access to were from before the presidential debates, but one of the disappointments of those debates was that there were no unexpected questions, nothing that a candidate would have benefited from by knowing in advance.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hillary's getting the snot Wikileaked out of her emails. If she takes steps to keep them private, it's, "oh, no government accountability! She's not following protocol! Arrest her!". And if she does whatever " official" method she's supposed to do, good ole Washington kicks in, and mysteriously all her emails show up in Russia, Sweden, the Republican campaign HQ, and the rest of the world.

It's a classic setup. Darned if you do, and danged if you don't.

It's a bit worse than that, in that we have to be out there in the comments sections reminding people they're committing a logical fallacy.

We have a torchlight, and we see grime on Hillary. That's obviously a problem. But it's a fallacy to then think she's 'worse' than Trump. We don't have an equivalent torchlight on Trump. We don't have access to private emails. We don't have access to Foundation records. We don't even have access to tax returns!

It's a logical fallacy to assume that he is worse. We just have no way of knowing. It's like saying that the front yard has fewer ants when you're looking out your window than the back yard has when you crawl around with a magnifying glass.

 

[Kyriakos]

Once again, though, a conclusion that requires more evidence. The email only says, "I get questions ahead of time from time to time." No indication it was specifically talking about debate questions. The email in question is written in such a way to indicate perhaps there were other discussions going on at the time which might indicate what they are actually talking about, but of course because this is WikiLeaks we are talking about, they're just publishing stuff without paying any mind to context so that people can just fill in their own facts as they wish.

You've filled in the blanks that the email was about cheating. The only evidence we have is the email itself. CNN has issued a statement that they do not share town hall questions with anyone before. Brazile has denied it. WikiLeaks has done nothing to try to provide context, or any other information regarding this other than the email itself. People have, of course, jumped to the conclusion they hoped people would jump to, but that may not actually be justified by the email itself.

That Brazile person seems very suspect, going by her interviews. Comes across as corrupt, and i think people should not shrug off such things just cause they hate Trump more.
Those are the people who will be in charge of your country. It is very unwise to make excuses for them. They couldn't care less about you.

 

[tetley]

It's a logical fallacy to assume that he is worse. We just have no way of knowing. It's like saying that the front yard has fewer ants when you're looking out your window than the back yard has when you crawl around with a magnifying glass.

"Assume" being the operative word. The light is being shone on Hillary's campaign while Trump's campaign is enshrouded in darkness, but people can still see in the dark if they just look. You can't see smoke in the dark, but you can see fire.

 

[Takhisis]

Bland name product!
‘A new line from Trump Hotels won't bear the famous name behind the original brand. The chief executive of the line, called Scion, says that was the plan all along.’

 

[metalhead]

That Brazile person seems very suspect, going by her interviews. Comes across as corrupt, and i think people should not shrug off such things just cause they hate Trump more.
Those are the people who will be in charge of your country. It is very unwise to make excuses for them. They couldn't care less about you.

I don't normally make excuses for people for which there is actual evidence of wrongdoing. However, I also tend not to assume someone is guilty of something because they "come across as corrupt." Because corruption apparently has a demeanor?

 

[Takhisis]

Corruption is demeaning.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd like to see the Trump campaign emails from the past 12 months. Hop to it wikileaks!

 

[Zkribbler]

That Brazile person seems very suspect, going by her interviews. Comes across as corrupt, and i think people should not shrug off such things just cause they hate Trump more.
Those are the people who will be in charge of your country. It is very unwise to make excuses for them. They couldn't care less about you.

I have watched Ms. Brazile for years in panel discussions and in interviews and I've never got a whiff of corruption. I have found her very carrying about the plight of the middle class and the poor. Could you point me to specifics?

 

[Thormodr]

"Assume" being the operative word. The light is being shone on Hillary's campaign while Trump's campaign is enshrouded in darkness, but people can still see in the dark if they just look. You can't see smoke in the dark, but you can see fire.

Lol. You have got to be kidding me.

The media has been totally one sided in this electoral campaign. Every single speck of dirt is being dug up on Trump but Clinton gets almost zero bad coverage by the mainstream media.

 

[JollyRoger]

What media outlet told you that?

 

[El_Machinae]

The media is rather biased against Trump. But that doesn't change the underlying point. We don't have equivalent access to information. We don't have Trump Foundation records. We don't have his internal emails. We don't have his tax records. The spotlights aren't the same.

Now, the bias against Trump is a bit two-fold. He makes more spectacular headlines, and that's what media sells these day. He also wildly abused them, so reporters are overwhelmingly prone to not give him benefit of the doubt.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How much free publicity did Trump get all during the primaries? Trump loved the attention then. Now, not so much.

 

[Kennigit]

Veritas means truth. So does Pravda.

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


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

J

Satan was banished from the kingdom of heaven

Not unconvicted

K

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm sick of "the media is." And not just because I'm a grammar nazi and "media" is plural. But because in actual point of fact, there are tons of different media outlets.

There is no one "media" that has acted some one way or another in this campaign season.

I'll even accept "the lamestream media is" thus or such. That at least has some modicum of meaning.

Turn to Fox. Tune in to Rush. Fire up Breitbart. You'll get a medium giving you just as much anti-Clinton coverage as you could want.

Pah.

 

[Ajidica]

Lol. You have got to be kidding me.

The media has been totally one sided in this electoral campaign. Every single speck of dirt is being dug up on Trump but Clinton gets almost zero bad coverage by the mainstream media.

Showing clips of Trump at his rallies is digging up dirt on him?

Furthermore, assuming Trump and Clinton are equally deplorable, surely Hillary's ability to engineer a massive conspiracy and keep her skeletons firmly hidden would make her better at running the globalist conspiracy of [insert vaguely anti-Semitic phrase of choice] than a guy who can't keep a decade old Access Hollywood recording that was never aired hidden?
If we are electing evil overlords, I prefer my evil overlords to be of the Emperor Palpatine variety.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Showing clips of Trump at his rallies is digging up dirt on him?

Furthermore, assuming Trump and Clinton are equally deplorable, surely Hillary's ability to engineer a massive conspiracy and keep her skeletons firmly hidden would make her better at running the globalist conspiracy of [insert vaguely anti-Semitic phrase of choice] than a guy who can't keep a decade old Access Hollywood recording that was never aired hidden?
If we are electing evil overlords, I prefer my evil overlords to be of the Emperor Palpatine variety.

It always comes back to competence. Trump supporters and TrumpSADs can "but Hillary did this! Hillary did that!" every Trump gaffe to death... but that just leads us back to the beginning... OK they both did this or that naughty thing... so that all cancels out and we are left with... who is more competent to fulfill the job of POTUS?... Hillary wins.