Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Pat B]

First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone. 

Wrong.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Generally agree, except for the part about knowing our own history.

Also, the fatal error of thinking that everyone wants to be like us.

[Brian]

As I said, the NYT and other media has reported the story but most of their coverage ever since has been to shield Hillary from the worst of the fallout.

Ugh. They BROKE the story. They MADE it. They researched and investigated and tracked it down when nobody else knew it existed. That is the exact opposite of shielding. They have doggedly pursued it ever since.

There are two reasons you think they are "shielding" Hillary:
1. the email scandal turned out less horrible than you think
2. the dozens of Trump scandals turned out, often, more horrible than the email scandal

[Mahlerian]

He assumed that a free press would be biased because that was what saw all around him. I guess he didn't count bias as an argument against press freedom.

Seconding this remark.  I don't know much about the 18th century, but in the 19th century, it was expected that newspapers would be openly partisan.  I think part of the problem with the current society is that the partisanship of Fox News, etc. is NOT openly declared and they pretend to be impartial.

[Rinaldo]

If my entire family has been incinerated by a drone strike, I'm probably not going to be comforted by the fact that the country that killed them holds somewhat competitive elections from time to time.

Democracy is better than dictatorship, but it's no guarantee of a sensible or peaceful foreign policy.

No argument from me there and this is exactly the area that's very problematic for me regarding Hillary. But I still believe she'll surround herself with competent people who give actual, honest thought to the impact of US intervention, and that her perceived 'hawkishness' will be softened by that.

[San Antone]

Ugh. They BROKE the story. They MADE it. They researched and investigated and tracked it down when nobody else knew it existed. That is the exact opposite of shielding. They have doggedly pursued it ever since.

There are two reasons you think they are "shielding" Hillary:
1. the email scandal turned out less horrible than you think
2. the dozens of Trump scandals turned out, often, more horrible than the email scandal

I think doggedly pursuing is an exaggeration.  From what I've seen they have tried to minimize its significance ever since Comey's report came out.  Also, while obnoxxious and boorish and possible rising to the level of sexual assault, nothing Trump has been accused of doing or is on tape saying rise to the level of a security threat to this country. 

Here's Comey:

lthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails).

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.

You may not remember Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.  He was referred to in several emails by her top advisers as "our friend".  Later he was executed for treason by Iran.

[(poco) Sforzando]

First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone. 

Secondly, the major media is going all out with attacking Trump on the groping issue (even going back 30 years) and ignoring the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton who did not consider Bill's sexual assaults disqualifying behavior for either the presidency or as husband. 

Thirdly, the media, while they focus on discrepancies in Trump's story, do precious few stories on the lies Hillary has told and continues to tell concerning her emails/server/cover-up and the discrepancy between her secret language to donors as opposed to her public statements to voters. 

For every one story the WPost or NYT or CNN may do on the WikiLeaks they run ten or more on Trump's tape or "bimbo eruptions" - a phrase Hillary coined to ridicule Bill's victims.  Also, Bill's victims were all "Friends of Bill" who morphed from fundraisers and campaign volunteers into members in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" by Hillary - another bit of abuse the victims were treated to at the hands of one of the Clintons.  This aspect is a non-story for the major media.

And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?

[drogulus]

     

Wait, what is this about Hillary's emails? I haven't heard about them, probably because the media haven't written about it enough.

    She told the company in charge of her server to go ahead and delete the personal emails before they were subpoenaed, then they were subpoenaed and the guy who forgot to delete them went "OH SHIT..." and deleted them. I guess you could make a conspiracy out of that.

    The other stuff about classified emails on her home server is a bit misunderstood. She was trying to fence off personal stuff and keep it off government servers, totally justified IMV. The thing is you can't cleanly separate work and personal except after the fact. The whole system needed adult supervision her staff was not capable of. That's her fault.

[San Antone]

And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?

Because it has been covered much more extensively by the non-Liberal media.  Merely knowing about something is not the issue.  How the reportage offers context (or not) offers critical analysis (or not) attempts to minimize the behavior (or not). 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

[(poco) Sforzando]

Because it has been covered much more extensively by the non-Liberal media.  Merely knowing about something is not the issue.  How the reportage offers context (or not) offers critical analysis (or not) attempts to minimize the behavior (or not).

And please give me the names of these non-Liberal sources.

[knight66]

Trump has been accused of rape and is due in court in December, see here.

_{http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other}


I also find it an odd idea that the press is supposed to highlight Clinton's potential abuse of power.....to report on something that might happen, but has not yet happened? Surely any presidential candidate can fall into that category.

I imagine you are relying on her history, which is seen on your side to be corrupt. Yet no one from FBI to Kenneth Star established anything indictable. And Star was assiduous and determined to the point of oppressive obsession, nevertheless conceding that if there had been a smoking gun, he would have found it.

Mike

[Brian]

I think doggedly pursuing is an exaggeration.  From what I've seen they have tried to minimize its significance ever since Comey's report came out.  Also, while obnoxxious and boorish and possible rising to the level of sexual assault, nothing Trump has been accused of doing or is on tape saying rise to the level of a security threat to this country. 

First of all, you need to fix your 'x' key 
EDIT: Oh, you edited out the typos, so now my comment looks silly 

Second, many/most of Trump's foreign policy positions arguably constitute a security threat.

Third, I don't know that the "liberal" media has minimized the email scandal since. It was just a question in the debate. I'm not sure what legitimately major server-related news stories have occurred since Comey's report; I know some of the emails were published but largely consisted of Clinton telling people to print things for records, or duplicates of emails we already knew about.

[San Antone]

And please give me the names of these non-Liberal sources.

The fullest coverage by non-Liberal media has been in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, both, btw that have been anti-Trump. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

The fullest coverage by non-Liberal media has been in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, both, btw that have been anti-Trump.

Both "mainstream media" if any ever were.

[San Antone]

First of all, you need to fix your 'x' key 
EDIT: Oh, you edited out the typos, so now my comment looks silly 

Second, many/most of Trump's foreign policy positions arguably constitute a security threat.

Third, I don't know that the "liberal" media has minimized the email scandal since. It was just a question in the debate. I'm not sure what legitimately major server-related news stories have occurred since Comey's report; I know some of the emails were published but largely consisted of Clinton telling people to print things for records, or duplicates of emails we already knew about.

I am a horrible typist.   

We won't know how his foreign policy would really play out.  Reagan was accused of the same thing, but he won the Cold War with this "evil empire" rhetoric and escalation of defense spending.  Both of which Trump has mimicked and sent the media into conniption fits.

[San Antone]

Both "mainstream media" if any ever were.

I said "non-Liberal".  There are a few mainstream media outlets which are non-Liberal, thankfully.  People say that Fox News has a right-wing bias.  I agree it does, thankfully, one major television network presents the Conservative POV.  But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.   

[Brian]

But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.

I'm pretty sure every Democrat "admits" this, at least for NYT and MSNBC. Except for Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper, CNN, as I've said before, is too stupid to have a point of view on the world, let alone have a bias.

[PerfectWagnerite]

And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?

Probably because he and others get their facts from such fools like Rush Limbaugh. Just saying.

[Herman]

As I said, the NYT and other media has reported the story but most of their coverage ever since has been to shield Hillary from the worst of the fallout.

In your partisanship you seem to be unaware that the NYT and Hillary Clinton have been enjoying a very bad, antagonistic relationship for many many years.

The NYT cannot stand HC because she's so unforthcoming and secretive, and the NYT has been a major party in the pursuing of the email story.

It is also the kind of paper that shows us that many other people in the State Dept have done exactly the same.