In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?

[ReijiTabibito]

You mean pretty much mainstream media these days?

If these people have paid attention to politics over the last 40 years, then I'm surprised that they hadn't picked up on a few trends.

A: similar to the country before the American Civil War, the US is becoming increasingly polarized over the issues.  The people can't even agree on what the basic goals and direction of the country should be, a contrast to, say, the Great Depression.  Everyone agreed that the depression was a bad thing and needed to stop, the difference was in how you addressed it and what steps you took.  Same goal, different paths.  Today, the goals are not only not the same, they're on opposite ends of the field.

B: being intelligent and well-informed has been diminished as a civic virtue.  Smart people are now 'nerds,' or 'geeks' or those guys you see on Big Bang Theory.  Or worse, depending on your specific sector of the population in-country.  People can argue whether this is by design or not, but the fact is that this has happened.

C: journalistic integrity - of the Good Night, and Good Luck brand - is almost depleted.  Steven Crowder did a video on how clickbait media and the need for news to compete with TV programming (primarily) has basically destroyed journalism and turned it into a contest of 'who can get the most views/likes.'  The go-to example I always use for this is the South Park episode Quest for Ratings.  It doesn't even matter these days whether or not the news is channel-affiliated!

[Cassandra LeMay]

This may be somewhat off topic, but I am a bit tired of all the arguments about the media. The media (which I'll loosely define as traditional newspapers, radio stations, and TV channels) has always been a commercial enterprise. The need for more clicks/advertisers may have been grown by an ever-faster newscycle and the internet, but making money has always been what "The Media" was about.

We are talking about commercial enterprises here. They don't just want to make money - they need to make money. Without making money they wouldn't exist. But to make money they need readers/listeners/viewers.

It sounds trivial, self-evident even, but the consequence of it is not trivial. The consequence is that the media feeds its customers what the customers want. If there is a problem it isn't on the supply side - it's on the demand side.

The media gives the people what the people want. It's how they stay in business. Sure, if you always consume the same sort of news filtered through the same lense you might come to believe that this is the only truth, that your news media are the only ones who tell the truth and everyone else lies. But that is a consumer-side problem. And the consumer isn't brainwashed by the media - the consumer turns to the media that he knows will fit his (pre-existing) opinion.

And this isn't a new problem. Look at the rivalry between Hearst and Pulitzer in the late 19th Century. Ratings always mattered. Would the Watergate story have been published if another story could have sold more copy? If there had been a story about a human woman having a baby with an orangutan that might have sold more copy, Watergate would never have made it to the front page.

Yes, quality journalism matters. It matters a lot. But I think it is unfair to blame the media for all its shortcommings when the real problem is the media consumer who drives the spiral downward.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The fact of the matter is that the media creates the market by creating the demand and business and industry buy into it.  The pharmaceutical industry is the proof of this.  They begin by promoting articles about a condition or disease, such as HPV.  This starts while new drugs are in clinical trials so that once approval is given to market the drugs the need has already been demonstrated and a consumer base is ready to accept and use it.

Newspapers have been around for centuries and researching the history of the United States and its elections will show that the news media has always used their power with the readership to influence the decisions of the voters.  As the media expanded and became more sophisticated so did their power.  The only thing that stops them is for the readership (and viewers) to take everything they say with more than a grain of salt and investigate the candidates for themselves.

However, people have become so intensely indoctrinated by propaganda that they have forgotten how to or become too indifferent to think for themselves.  It is nearly impossible to find media sources that are objective.  In this election there is little objective support for Hillary Clinton because people have the attitude that they have already made up their minds about her and don't want to be confused by the facts.  If you look you can find sources who have no axe to grind and no preconceived agenda.

It actually amuses me how many people bad mouth, back stab and degrade Hillary and still benefit by all the work she had done in government over the years.  Her record of public service speaks for itself which is good since few people even bother to try and recognize all she has to give this country. 

Anyway, the media is in business to make money and to do that they need to tell people what to think and then feed them the pap that satisfies their hunger.  The attacks on Hillary are repetitive and boring and more and more ineffectual to those of us recognize them for what they are.  The media doesn't need to attack Trump because he is more that capable of tripping over his own tongue and lack of ethics and intelligence and presenting, on a silver platter, ammunition to create his destruction.  He has been a bonanza for the media.

We can wax philosophical as much as we want but in the end it comes down to a candidate who has worked for more than thirty years to better the condition of children, families and veterans in this country, who is admittedly flawed, less than perfect like the rest of us and a candidate that is a morally bankrupt liar, cheat and inhuman despot and has nothing to offer us of any redeeming value.  After over a year of campaigning Trump is still not able to tell us how he intends to accomplish any of the so-called programs he says he will institute.

I know I'm going to either get arguments from or be ignored by everyone who thinks they know better than I do.  I spend every workday associating with hundreds of people and while support for Trump is steadily declining and support for Hillary is slowly gaining the consensus of opinion, even among Trump supporters, is that Hillary is the only one who will not put this country in an embarrassing position with salacious comments and lies and cause us to be bombed back to the stone age.

[ReijiTabibito]

It actually amuses me how many people bad mouth, back stab and degrade Hillary and still benefit by all the work she had done in government over the years.  Her record of public service speaks for itself which is good since few people even bother to try and recognize all she has to give this country. 

I was hoping for another opportunity to discuss this.  I'm willing to give her credit for working in government for her time there - even if I'm cynical and think it was all political calculation - but can anyone name one thing she did?  One thing that she alone can take credit for?  Was there a law she championed, or some initiative she helmed, or anything that I can put my finger down on and say 'Hillary Clinton was the primary party responsible for this accomplishment'?

Elizabeth Warren likes to tell the story of a bill she brought to Hillary when she was First Lady - a bill for credit cards and bankers and you can Google this story - and Warren explained it to her and she got the bill stopped.  But then, when she was elected Senator of New York, she immediately did a flip-flop and voted for the bill.

Now, Warren used the story to elaborate on political corruption and other problems ailing the government - but here's the thing I would like to use it for in this scenario.  You cannot use the passage of that bill to indict Hillary Clinton alone, because there were other senators in there who also voted for that bill, so all of them are equally guilty of helping pass that law.  Plus, I'm not even sure of what the vote was - for all I know, it was 80-20 and Clinton's vote was immaterial, the bill was going to pass anyways.  Now, IF, on the other hand, the bill required a tiebreaker vote, and Hillary was the one who cast the tiebreaker vote which allowed the bill to pass (not possible in our government, as the Vice President is responsible for breaking ties in the Senate, but hear me), then I would put that on her shoulders, because the bill would have failed without her.

It's fair to say she put in effort, absolutely.  But beyond that?  I'd like a little evidence.

We can wax philosophical as much as we want but in the end it comes down to a candidate who has worked for more than thirty years to better the condition of children, families and veterans in this country, who is admittedly flawed, less than perfect like the rest of us

I don't think it's fair to put the rest of us on the level with her.  There's a lot of stuff that she's been accused of over the years that has never gone anywhere - whether because they were specious or because of political connections she enjoyed - that would have ruined your average citizen in the US today.  There was a US naval officer who was accused of the same crime she was - that is, the crime that the FBI officially was investigating her for - that did not turn out in the officer's favor.  Up until recently, people have talked about how resilient Trump is to have stood up to the scrutiny and said the things he did.  This has been...what, a year?  Hillary, if you listen to the media outlets, has been under attack for the last 25 years, for stuff like Whitewater, Benghazi, Bill's sex abuse scandals (where in more than a few cases she was noted as bullying the women and trying to silence them - before she became the champion for women's voices against sex abuse)...how has she managed to endure through all of these things?  And don't tell me it was because she was genuinely innocent, 'didn't do anything wrong officer,' in every case.  Once is understandable, twice is coincidence, three times...?

I will give you that this is at least a better description of Hillary's activities - even if I think they're cynical and a very long-range plan to eventually come to this point - than saying "She's done so much for families," for the reasons I have elucidated on above. 

Hillary is slowly gaining the consensus of opinion...that Hillary is the only one who will not put this country in an embarrassing position with salacious comments and lies and cause us to be bombed back to the stone age.

Salacious comments?  No.  That won't be Hillary's job.

Lies?  Have you been paying attention for the last eight years?

Bombed to the stone age?  Debatable.  Whether or not we really end up in trouble is up to if she's actually going to try and pull off that no-fly zone in Syria and with ISIS, because it's clear as day to everyone who she's targeting with it.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Lies?  Have you been paying attention for the last eight years?

I might be one of the few who have, mostly because I'm picky about my news sources.  In fact, I avoid media bombast as much as possible because repeating what is touted there just makes me feel foolish.

Go looking for true, objective reporting.

For example:  Foundation information.  Anyone who thinks the Trump foundation is better than the Clinton foundation has avoided looking at the facts.

[Cassandra LeMay]

... One thing that she alone can take credit for?  ...

I would be rather concerned if anyone in politics took sole credit for something and it were actually true.

For example:  Foundation information.  Anyone who thinks the Trump foundation is better than the Clinton foundation has avoided looking at the facts.

Or maybe that someone has not looked at the big picture. I hear it's pretty big. About six feet tall. That's what I'd call a big picture. But what do I know. Does anyone know? Is there even a big picture? I don't know. But there is a big picture. You figure it out.

;)

[ReijiTabibito]

Go looking for true, objective reporting.

Since such things are not usually available in the universally consumed media, can you give me a place to start?  I would like to have an idea, at least.

For example:  Foundation information.  Anyone who thinks the Trump foundation is better than the Clinton foundation has avoided looking at the facts.

I know you're using this as an example, but two things. 

One: my opinion on both foundations is that they're corrupt and used for influence peddling.  Saying that one is 'better' than the other is not the measure I'm generally going by.  A 68 is better than a 64, but they're still both shite when it comes to test scores. 

Two: The activities of the Clinton Foundation were supposed to be separate from what Hillary was doing at the time as a Senator and then SecState.  This is a bit of a nitpick, but some savant idiot out there might catch it.

I would be rather concerned if anyone in politics took sole credit for something and it were actually true.

Point taken, but I can go halfway and say something that her name is famously attached to - like Dodd-Frank, or Obamacare, the Brady Bill, or the Hatch Act.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Since such things are not usually available in the universally consumed media, can you give me a place to start?  I would like to have an idea, at least.

Go to the National Women's History Museum website and scroll down to her name.  This will give you a beginning point.

I know you're using this as an example, but two things. 

One: my opinion on both foundations is that they're corrupt and used for influence peddling.  Saying that one is 'better' than the other is not the measure I'm generally going by.  A 68 is better than a 64, but they're still both shite when it comes to test scores. 

Two: The activities of the Clinton Foundation were supposed to be separate from what Hillary was doing at the time as a Senator and then SecState.  This is a bit of a nitpick, but some savant idiot out there might catch it.

I'm not sure where you get your information from or why you do overlook the actual comparisons of the two foundations in the general media.  The Clinton foundation has been given an A rating out of a possible A+ while the Trump foundation is being investigated for improprieties.  The following link is one I just found.

Clinton:  https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680  Look at the amount of funding that goes into overhead and fund raising.  Then go do more research on your own.

Trump:  https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Trump&Submit2=Search&bay=search.results*

*Several listings are shown for Trump.  One is under investigation and the other is private and not eligible for rating on this site.

Point taken, but I can go halfway and say something that her name is famously attached to - like Dodd-Frank, or Obamacare, the Brady Bill, or the Hatch Act.

No one who has been in politics for three decades will have a lily white record any more than any of us can say we haven't lied about someone, cut some corners or changed our minds after expressing an opinion.  If you are looking for perfection you will be forever disappointed.  Look for someone who has made mistakes, worked to over come them and still succeeded in doing good and positive work. 

Judge if you must but remember to be perfect for the rest of your life.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The test of this election is that one candidate is totally and completely borked and the other is repeatedly batter, beaten and bludgeoned with the same stick over and over and over again.

[Warlock]

Actually with the podesta emails we've gotten a new set of sticks, along with sharpening some old ones. Nor is the horse quite dead yet.

[CuriousEyes]

I was hoping for another opportunity to discuss this.  I'm willing to give her credit for working in government for her time there - even if I'm cynical and think it was all political calculation - but can anyone name one thing she did?  One thing that she alone can take credit for?  Was there a law she championed, or some initiative she helmed, or anything that I can put my finger down on and say 'Hillary Clinton was the primary party responsible for this accomplishment'?

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041

77 pieces of legislation signed into law have Clinton listed as a sponsor or co-sponsor. These include the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, protections for 9/11 victims/survivors, etc.

Only three passed into law with her listed as the primary sponsor, admittedly being rather bullshit items like renaming post offices and highways.

She sponsored or cosponsored 3,386 pieces between 2001 - 2009. 713 as the primary sponsor, 2676 as a cosponsor.

For comparison, between 1991 and today, Bernie Sanders has sponsored 796 items and cosponsored 5522 others. 209 became law - 3 of which he was the sponsor of. 2 of 3 are the renaming of post offices.

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/


Edit for clarity: Bernie Sanders third piece of legislation - an actual substantive piece, The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013.

[Beguile's Mistress]

How Democrats are Dominating Early Voting in Nevada

[Oniya]

For comparison, between 1991 and today, Bernie Sanders has sponsored 796 items and cosponsored 5522 others. 209 became law - 3 of which he was the sponsor of. 2 of 3 are the renaming of post offices.

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/

For completeness, you might have included the third bill as well:  The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013

[CuriousEyes]

For completeness, you might have included the third bill as well:  The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013

In truth, I should have. I'm touchscreen typing and it was getting tedious so I snipped corners by referring to "2 of 3" as being bread & circuses type legislation with the hope that it would establish the third as more substantive by default. Coupled with my earlier calling out of all three of HRCs sponsored bills as being that exact type of noise I had hoped it would avoid an appearance of obfuscating records.

But I can see how that might not have played. I should edit.


The main gist had been to establish a) HRC had a solid track record of working in the Senate to introduce legislation and b) just how hard it is to substantively accomplish anything as your "defining" achievement as a congressperson.

[WindFish]

A summary of all the times Trump has threatened to sue someone during his campaign because he got triggered.

If this is what he's like when he campaigns, can you imagine him as President? Goodbye, First Amendment.

Ironic coming from the guy who claims to be the champion of being "anti-PC".

[Missy]

A summary of all the times Trump has threatened to sue someone during his campaign because he got triggered.

If this is what he's like when he campaigns, can you imagine him as President? Goodbye, First Amendment.

Ironic coming from the guy who claims to be the champion of being "anti-PC".

Trump is only ever offended if its about him, anyone else can go suck a dick.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Trump stated in a campaign speech the other day that 1.8 million people are dead but are registered to vote anyway. 

According to Rudy Guiliani this will benefit Hillary Clinton because, as he says, dead people usually vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

I've been wondering why zombies are so popular these days.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump stated in a campaign speech the other day that 1.8 million people are dead but are registered to vote anyway. 

According to Rudy Guiliani this will benefit Hillary Clinton because, as he says, dead people usually vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

I've been wondering why zombies are so popular these days.

"Dead men don't play the guitar", as somebody said in a cowboy comic strip I read when I was a kid.  :D

[Mithlomwen]

According to Rudy Guiliani this will benefit Hillary Clinton because, as he says, dead people usually vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

........I.......wut?

I can't even.....

Does the man even think before letting words come out of his mouth? 

*edited to remove the random 6 floating in there.

[Beguile's Mistress]

6

........I.......wut?

I can't even.....

Does the man even think before letting words come out of his mouth? 

Not anymore.

[ReijiTabibito]

Trump stated in a campaign speech the other day that 1.8 million people are dead but are registered to vote anyway. 

According to Rudy Guiliani this will benefit Hillary Clinton because, as he says, dead people usually vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

I've been wondering why zombies are so popular these days.

Yes, because clearly nobody dies anymore.

My particular take on dead people still being registered to vote is to see - A: when did they die?  If they died between now and the last election cycle, then yeah, probably understandable error, B: what were their ages?  If these 1.8 million people are between the ages of 80-90, then it's understandable that they did; and C: causes of death.  Old people aren't the only ones who die, so knowing that can help out.

That said.  The voter roll purgings that were made an issue of late last year as the primaries were ongoing were not just of dead people.  I forget what their rationale was for purging the rolls, though.  To say "we got some dead people, but missed others," can be seen as a possibly with-ill-intentions statement.

[Oniya]

Also, if they died of old age, it's no surprise that they voted D over R.  Have you seen how the Republicans have been going after Social Security?  :D

[gaggedLouise]

As long as there aren't actually any dead guys getting elected into state senate seats... ^_ ^

[ReijiTabibito]

Also, if they died of old age, it's no surprise that they voted D over R.  Have you seen how the Republicans have been going after Social Security?  :D

To be fair, Social Security is, to use a Crash Course term, "a hot mess."  There does need to be some work done on it - in terms of long-term sustainability and answering the question of 'what happens to all the money that is lost when people die,' but the Republican approach is not precisely going to answer either of those issues in a way that will benefit the people they pretend it will.

[Cassandra LeMay]

According to Rudy Guiliani this will benefit Hillary Clinton because, as he says, dead people usually vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

Totally true! I just asked a bunch of dead people I know if they were going to vote Republican, but all I got was silence. I have no choice but to assume that means they are going to vote Democrat instead.