USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›798 »

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

#TrumpTwitterarti with a blistering Response:

Use the word uppity. Come on. You know you want to.

Or should I say, hwant to.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:57

Deified Data: Nov 3, 2015; Fun Shoe

Ghetto Prince posted:

I thought he was against police reform?

That was a command, not a statement of fact

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:25

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

Lightning Knight posted:

I'm phone posting so I don't really want to do details, but to be brief, I kind of don't like JFK as President and I think he's overrated because of the martyr effect. Either of his brothers probably would've been better Presidents, but both of them died tragically, so JFK had to grow up and take the family mantle instead of being a playboy partier forever. JFK probably did more good dead, as a bloody shirt for LBJ to wave, than as an actual President. At least, in my opinion.

jfk admitted that if he didn't have sex 3 times a day his balls ached and he felt like crap

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:26

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

happyhippy posted:

This is loving hilarious, made my day better thank you.
Now WV cops will be shooting everything in case they get canned lol.

I'm totally sure the police union that HAS to defend them all is going to bat for that guy.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:27

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

jfk admitted that if he didn't have sex 3 times a day his balls ached and he felt like crap

You know, I wouldn't even be surprised. JFK was a weird dude. He was the Anthony Weiner of his day. Except, you know, when he cheated on his stunningly pretty wife he actually got laid with the other woman. :v:

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:27

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Hey, anyone still in a good mood today? If so please let this article repeatedly kick you in the balls until you're doubled over and coughing up blood:

West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun

That's not a typo and it's actually much worse than the headline leads you to believe!

For the record, Wierton is basically in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

happyhippy posted:

This is loving hilarious, made my day better thank you.
Now WV cops will be shooting everything in case they get canned lol.

No they won't.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:27

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Lastgirl posted:

press is gonna be so maaaaaad

If today has been any indication so far, the left wing calling out the media on being limp dicked failures seems to actually motivate them to do their jobs

they even called out Trump today!

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:28

Geostomp: Oct 22, 2008; Unite: MASH!!
~They've got the bad guys on the run!~

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

#TrumpTwitterarti with a blistering Response:

The best part is that they seem unaware how easy this is to twist into an endorsement.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:29

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

Lightning Knight posted:

You know, I wouldn't even be surprised. JFK was a weird dude. He was the Anthony Weiner of his day. Except, you know, when he cheated on his stunningly pretty wife he actually got laid with the other woman.

he even told this to the british pm harold macmillan

still not as bad as lbj having actual dick measuring contests and pissing on a secret service agent

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:30

TheScott2K: Oct 26, 2003; I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

theflyingorc posted:

He works it really well, but I'm really tired of the POTUS getting credit for the price of gas, because that's mostly controlled by things outside the President's control.

He at least deserves some credit for not letting anyone tell the Saudis not to set their literal only source of wealth and power for the sake of "market share" like some loving Petroleum Google Android.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:30

Geostomp: Oct 22, 2008; Unite: MASH!!
~They've got the bad guys on the run!~

Lastgirl posted:

press is gonna be so maaaaaad

This is gonna be good. They'll defend Trump even harder out of spite.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:30

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

straight up brolic posted:

She's melting down.

https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/775696799273197568

This is just Gish Gallop: The Election JFC

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:31

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Geostomp posted:

This is gonna be good. They'll defend Trump even harder out of spite.

Nah, they've kind of been shamed into doing their jobs since Monday

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:31

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

If today has been any indication so far, the left wing calling out the media on being limp dicked failures seems to actually motivate them to do their jobs

they even called out Trump today!

Also possible they're getting sick of the Trump Comeback Story and want to poke the bear some more the other way.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:31

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

You know, I wouldn't even be surprised. JFK was a weird dude. He was the Anthony Weiner of his day. Except, you know, when he cheated on his stunningly pretty wife he actually got laid with the other woman.

Dude banged a Satzi spy but before becoming president.

Also JFK was hopped up on crazy amounts of muscle relaxers and narctics during the entire Cuban Missile Crisis. He couldn't sit in the chair for hours on end because of his back, so they just pumped the President full of drugs.

Puts pneumoniaghzi in perspective.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:32

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Trabisnikof posted:

Puts pneumoniaghzi in perspective.

FDR couldn't walk

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:33

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Josh Marshall has a good piece on why the Public Editor's piece in the NYT about "false balance" is really concerning and dangerous.

It's long.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-crisis-at-the-times-and-that-public-editor-piece

quote:

The Crisis at The Times And That Public Editor Piece

I had a chance to read New York Times public editor Liz Spayd's much discussed column on "false balance." I've seen many 'false balance' critics attacking it and countless national news reporters embracing it. Spayd locks in on some real shortcomings of this media critique. But they are largely clumsy versions of the argument which allow Spayd to ignore the actual criticism. And she concludes with what amounts to a generalized, all good, Times reporters!, please don't be "intimidated" by these arguments.

The reality is that the contemporary journalistic concept of 'balance' is inevitably in tension with accuracy. How to resolve that tension is a point of debate. To essentially deny the tension, as Spayd does, shows you're just not engaging the question.

Let me start by saying that it is easy to allow 'false balance' or 'false equivalence' critiques to devolve into, "You're not covering what I'm seeing? My side isn't as bad as the other side. But you're not making that clear." I've definitely seen that happen. But disputing this reasoning hardly addresses the actual critique or debate.

Spayd also addresses a different argument which I have also heard, which is basically: "There's so much at stake in this election, the media needs to make sure to people know how bad Trump is." People say lots of things. That's not the argument about 'false balance'. It's a different, not terribly well-thought-out argument that the news media should essentially weaponize itself to save the republic from Donald Trump. The republic does need saving. But the best way for the media to do that is simply to do its actual job, which is to separate facts from non-facts and provide clarity and context to the flurry of information and misinformation that political campaigns inevitably combine and spew in equal measure.

Very little of Spayd's column actually addresses how some critics, myself included, say much of the establishment mainstream media is failing its charge. I would say there are two separate but related arguments. And the issue is not rooted only in journalism but in the business models of many news organizations starting in the mid-late 20th century until now.

First is what I'd call factual balance. Is anthropogenic climate change real? We've all seen news packages (though less over the last couple years) where one 'side' says yes, climate change is real and it's a big problem and another 'side' that says the evidence isn't in yet or its a hoax. We live in a heterogenous polity and shape our society around empirically based scientific investigations. Neither trucks in absolute truths. All truth is contingent and subject to new data. But we govern numerous aspects of our society around the consensus of scientific or expert opinion. By that reasoning, one of these things is true, valid and one is not. It is perhaps the most essential journalistic responsibility to distinguish one from the other. Indeed, over the weekend I saw a former TPM reporter say that informing readers about what is true and not true is journalists' first and most important responsibility. He's right. It's troubling that this should require stating or that even I found it a bit bracing when I read it. Some arguments don't have two sides, which means, properly speaking, they're not even arguments.

The more complicated question comes when you are judging things that are not scientific fact, but things that are much more subjective and multifaceted.

That's what Spayd gets into in this paragraph which is the crux of her argument:

The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton�s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers � remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton�s email so that the public isn�t confused about what�s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It�s a slippery slope.

Spayd's first point is simply wrong - whether she knows it or not, I don't know. Her claim is that what critics are asking is for reporters to editorialize. So a reporter knows in her heart that Trump is bad, wrong, etc. so you pour on the hits just a bit harder or just try to hammer and damage him because he's bad. That's not what I'm saying. And it's not what I've heard any prominent critic who makes these arguments say that either. It's a classic strawman and where it gets Spayd is to suggest that news judgment or evaluation of facts amounts to 'editorializing.' The point is significantly different.

There's a lot going on in that paragraph I just quoted. But let me note a few of them. Spayd ignores the possibility that there may be factual or contextual judgments that journalists can and may need to make to distinguish one thing from another. She's then drawn into adopting the language of faux-populism about a 'paternalistic' media keeping some news from readers so that they're not "confused." No one is saying anything like this. Spayd is speaking so generally here that she is at once claiming people are saying things no one is saying - refusing to cover some stories because readers won't understand they're not important - and attacking the very idea of news judgment itself. How much attention does one story deserve? Is it a big deal or not a big deal? Reporters and editors do and must make these judgments all the time. Every day. Indeed, every political journalist is more or less constantly inundated with interested parties claiming that they've got some new angle or story that is the biggest thing out there. It seldom is. Reporters are constantly making these kinds of judgments.

If 'balance' is interpreted in the wrong way that can lead to the assumption that at the end of the day both candidates need to get the same number of hits. But that can lead to something akin to deskewing polls - reweighting the facts for balance. I spoke to a fellow journalist the other day who said, in response to this debate, that it's hard to think of any candidate who's ever had more damaging press than Trump. In comparison to Hillary Clinton that's at least debatable. But I think there's a pretty decent argument that my friend is right. But it also reveals a key blindspot. While there have been a number of extremely good and hard time investigative exposes on various parts of Trump's professional background, I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming amount of the damaging press he's gotten has been simply publishing or airing things he's said publicly or chronicling the back and forth between Trump and the Khans or Trump and Judge Curiel. This hardly counts in some notional balancing of scrutiny on a scale since it is little more than running a camera in front of Trump and letting people watch. There's little doubt that the scrutiny of The Clinton Foundation and Clinton's emails have had a repetitive, hyper-skeptical and saturation coverage that hasn't been close to matched by any investigative story about Donald Trump. It's not remotely close. Whether the Trump scandal coverage or the Clinton scandal coverage is the proper standard I can't say. But they're unquestionably different.

At one point Spayd seems to concede that Times reporters have been so wedded to the Clinton/Foundation/Email apocalypse storyline that they've published major front page stories that actually contained nothing damaging or even newsworthy but presented it as though it were some damaging new revelation. But she dismisses the importance of this as simply the result of inevitable journalistic misfires or shortcomings as opposed to evidence of a deeper, structural problem - either with the canons of contemporary journalism or Times' reporters' biases. At some level it's true that journalism has been, especially in this campaign, forced to choose sides between an empirical, factual orientation and what we might call a post-factual, notionally anti-elitist mentality which rejects expertise and such a thing as facts as existing separate from opinion and desire. We can chortle over how this mindset on the right is actually at least broadly similar to ideologies of radical subjectivity in the world of the academic left these people detest. But that's not terribly relevant beyond being funny. Journalism isn't being asked to choose sides. Its craft is part of the Enlightenment framework whether it likes it or not. It can only become something different if that ceases to be the case.

A good, though rather parodic and extreme example of the kind of both-sides-ism we're talking about was the spate of headlines which said some version of "Trump, Clinton Trade Charges of Racism" a couple weeks ago. Well, one candidate has openly identified with avowed racists, made racially incendiary remarks and made racism the single most salient theme of his campaign. The other ... well, there's really nothing like that besides Trump saying 'No, you're racist.' This isn't a moral or ideological judgment. It is, as far as we can ever have it, a factual statement of what's actually happening. Those are precisely the judgments we rely on reporters to make. These are not scientific, purely objective judgments. But neither are they moral or ideological. They are factual, or factual well within the scope of the kinds of judgements we expect reporters to make.

This is simply one example. But it's emblematic.

Now why is this? The key to understanding this phenomenon is to see that it is as much tied to publishing and business models as journalistic conventions. This is not meant in the sense that journalist strive for faux balance out of some hunt for clicks or dollars. It's not nearly so direct or mercenary. The issue is that the contemporary journalistic concept of objectivity is not only rooted in professional and ideological developments of the early 20th century. It is also rooted in changes in the newspaper publishing industry in the middle and late 20th century. As an increasing number of American cities became single newspaper or de facto single newspaper towns, their financial footing became increasingly based on monopoly ad pricing. This made well-known newspapers very lucrative and consistently profitable businesses since they had de facto monopolies over commercial advertising in specific geographic areas. But it also made their business model rest on being the default news source for all news consumers in their region. Obviously there were boutique publications and TV. But before the Internet, this major city and even regional newspaper dominance was a huge fact of the journalism profession and the news business - and one many assumed was the normal state of things.

This monopoly or near monopoly framework made reporters - and particularly political campaign reporters - into something more akin to moderators of debates between candidates rather than arbiters of fact, what was happening and what wasn't. There are many roots of the phenomenon we're discussing here. I don't mean to say this is the only one. But a critical and under-appreciated factor is that need for publications to be relevant to all news consumers in a geographical region, whether a major city, a region or the country at large. Of course, that monopoly power - both financial and journalistic - made an institution like the LA Times in its heyday incredibly powerful. But its organizational premise and business model also made it vulnerable to opponents' accusations of bias, true or not. That leverage only grew as elements of the monopoly power slipped away. And this distorting prism only became more intense as the country became increasingly polarized along partisan lines.

In other words, because of an interwoven mix of journalistic and publishing imperatives reporters were no longer able to treat one candidate as fundamentally different from the other, if that treatment was merited by what was actually happening. Not for ideological reasons. Not for moral reasons. But for factual reasons. Reasons of basic judgment and understanding of context. Trump's campaign has been so different, so indifferent to clear factual claims, so unbridled that he has frequently put this whole edifice under strain to a breaking point.

In a minor, almost comical example, we've seen the television innovation of "chyron fact checks", where at least CNN and MSNBC have taken to chyroning Trump's latest statements with an embedded fact-check. "Trump Says He Never Supported Iraq War (Not True)." These little moments were funny and close to unprecedented. But they showed how Trump's repeated false statements were so brazen and repetitive that he put the whole edifice under strain. But the big point is contemporary mainstream journalism has this key structural weakness: it can't level fundamental criticisms of one side in the political debate that it doesn't apply to the other because it risks access to that side and relevance and legitimacy to that side's supporters.

Readers should realize this isn't as easy a matter to get around as it sounds. That weakness and the threats surrounding it are real. Mainstream media journalists simply lack the tool set to deal with a candidate like Trump. It is as much structural as tied to the individual shortcomings of any reporter. But it's no less damaging and real because it's driven by factors that are out of the hands of most individual reporters. I've heard some people not that, ironically, some of the best coverage of Trump's ties to white supremacists come from anti-Trump parts of the conservative press. They know the players and they're unbound by these rules. It's fair to say most are hostile to Trump and that yields and particularly intense scrutiny. But the upshot is what it is: they've produced better reporting on the topic than really any of the mainstream press.

What this debate all comes down to is that the imperative for balance and the imperative for accuracy and completeness, what's true and what's not are inevitably in tension. Precisely how it's solved or how that tension is dealt with is a very good debate to be having. (I would say the goal is not balance but fundamental fairness and honesty with readers and a constant effort to interrogate ones own biases.) But not to recognize the tension and not to see how some candidates push that tension to the point of crisis simply shows you're in denial or have a monumental lack of self-awareness about the journalistic craft. That pretty much captures Spayd's column.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:34

hiddenriverninja: May 10, 2013; life is locomotion
keep moving
trust that you'll find your way

GalacticAcid posted:

https://twitter.com/nro/status/775734050355044387

Lmfao

anyone have a screen cap? tweet looks to be deleted.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:37

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

he even told this to the british pm harold macmillan

still not as bad as lbj having actual dick measuring contests and pissing on a secret service agent

The tailor call and "worst thing since pantyhose ruined finger loving" are my fav vulgar LBJ.

Was the "spend your first day showering with every page so you've seen them naked and they'll support LBJ as page pres" story verified by Caro?

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:37

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

saltylopez posted:

If I've learned anything from Chapo Trap House, it's that there are certain... implications to any sort of boat trip with people from the National Review.

lmaooo

Get those knickers off and join me, ducky

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:42

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Kennedy signed an executive order barring discrimination by government contractors on the basis of race, creed, color or religion which was a Pretty Alright Thing. In general though I would agree he didn't really get that much done, and probably would not have got as much done as LBJ did (though LBJ benefited immensely from the ability to bludgeon the opposition with the tragedy of Kennedy's death). And the whole "getting us into Vietnam" thing was obviously a colossal gently caress-up.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:43

CannonFodder: Jan 26, 2001; Passion’s Wrench

theflyingorc posted:

He works it really well, but I'm really tired of the POTUS getting credit for the price of gas, because that's mostly controlled by things outside the President's control.

He gets blamed for things outside his control so when he can take advantage of it he should take that chance.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:44

Deified Data: Nov 3, 2015; Fun Shoe

Geostomp posted:

The best part is that they seem unaware how easy this is to twist into an endorsement.

With the people it's targeted towards it will be received as the condemnation it is 100% off the time.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:45

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

I'm not sure I will ever truly understand Republican politics:

https://twitter.com/bethreinhard/status/775766740483600384

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:46

GalacticAcid: Apr 8, 2013; NEW YORK VALUES

hiddenriverninja posted:

anyone have a screen cap? tweet looks to be deleted.

Edited for thumb tags

GalacticAcid fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 13, 2016

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:46

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

HannibalBarca posted:

I'm not sure I will ever truly understand Republican politics:

https://twitter.com/bethreinhard/status/775766740483600384

It owns how dumb they are.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:48

patonthebach: Aug 22, 2016; by R. Guyovich

zoux posted:

No it's because a new poll shows that Obama is up to 58% approval and median wages rose 5+%, the most since 99

I'd bet dollars to donuts Obama would beat Hillary or Trump 1 on 1 if that was possible to have an 12 year term.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:49

GalacticAcid: Apr 8, 2013; NEW YORK VALUES

HannibalBarca posted:

I'm not sure I will ever truly understand Republican politics:

https://twitter.com/bethreinhard/status/775766740483600384

Throwback to one of my favorite campaign moments -

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:49

Bukowski: Dec 28, 2009; hammulder

TheScott2K posted:

He at least deserves some credit for not letting anyone tell the Saudis not to set their literal only source of wealth and power for the sake of "market share" like some loving Petroleum Google Android.

Energy independence would be horrible, we need to keep suckling at the teat of a third world theocracy and never ever do anything to change that because those poor Saudis only have one source of income!!

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHEIKHS???

Please keep flooding the market with foreign oil produced with substandard safety and environmental regulations, that won't ever end and will never end up destabilizing anything

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:50

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

CannonFodder posted:

He gets blamed for things outside his control so when he can take advantage of it he should take that chance.

I'm not criticizing Obama here, I'm criticizing an electorate that honestly thinks that the price of gas is a thing you can hang around the neck of the current president, for good or ill. It's very nearly like blaming the president for the weather.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:51

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

patonthebach posted:

I'd bet dollars to donuts Obama would beat Hillary or Trump 1 on 1 if that was possible to have an 12 year term.

I mean Obama is one of the best campaigners in decades.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:52

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

theflyingorc posted:

I'm not criticizing Obama here, I'm criticizing an electorate that honestly thinks that the price of gas is a thing you can hang around the neck of the current president, for good or ill. It's very nearly like blaming the president for the weather.

We had a very mild August, thanks Obama.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:52

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

zoux posted:

We had a very mild August, thanks Obama.

How soon we forget the weather control machine he used to look super presidential and save his failing bid in 2012 with Sandy.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:52

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

New trump merchandise

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:52

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

HannibalBarca posted:

I'm not sure I will ever truly understand Republican politics:

https://twitter.com/bethreinhard/status/775766740483600384

hahaha just imagine a car driving around with that on it after Trump loses.

Literally a sticker on your car about how awful you are, it's beautiful.

patonthebach posted:

I'd bet dollars to donuts Obama would beat Hillary or Trump 1 on 1 if that was possible to have an 12 year term.

Hillary would not be running if Obama could run for a third term.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:53

Dreadwind: Dec 1, 2009

Hey thread, are there any decent write ups for each of Clinton's "scandals"? As in I'm trying to find actual impartial fact checking breakdowns for Benghazi, emails, and the Clinton Foundation instead of the usual he said, she said, we'll never know for sure so you decide bullshit.

Literally every article I've found so far is either:

A) She's the Anti-Christ and these scandals are irrefutable proof of her dark deeds
B) She might have done something wrong but we can't say what those wrong things are
C) These things really don't matter, vote Hillary

There has to be at least one investigative journalist left in America, right? Right?!?

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:53

hiddenriverninja: May 10, 2013; life is locomotion
keep moving
trust that you'll find your way

GalacticAcid posted:

Throwback to one of my favorite campaign moments -

There's no way that can be real.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:54

BigRed0427: Mar 23, 2007; There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Dreadwind posted:

Hey thread, are there any decent write ups for each of Clinton's "scandals"? As in I'm trying to find actual impartial fact checking breakdowns for Benghazi, emails, and the Clinton Foundation instead of the usual he said, she said, we'll never know for sure so you decide bullshit.

Literally every article I've found so far is either:

A) She's the Anti-Christ and these scandals are irrefutable proof of her dark deeds
B) She might have done something wrong but we can't say what those wrong things are
C) These things really don't matter, vote Hillary

There has to be at least one investigative journalist left in America, right? Right?!?

VOX.com tends to be my go to because they do really good explanations on stuff like this. But they do lean left.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:56

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Night10194 posted:

Also possible they're getting sick of the Trump Comeback Story and want to poke the bear some more the other way.

LOL at the thread once again getting hopeful that the poo poo media/news isn't just bouncing between both sides for horse race BS.

But seriously if there really is a movement/pressure from "The Left" I hope it keeps going.

# ? Sep 13, 2016 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:57

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

Dreadwind posted:

Hey thread, are there any decent write ups for each of Clinton's "scandals"? As in I'm trying to find actual impartial fact checking breakdowns for Benghazi, emails, and the Clinton Foundation instead of the usual he said, she said, we'll never know for sure so you decide bullshit.

Literally every article I've found so far is either:

A) She's the Anti-Christ and these scandals are irrefutable proof of her dark deeds
B) She might have done something wrong but we can't say what those wrong things are
C) These things really don't matter, vote Hillary

There has to be at least one investigative journalist left in America, right? Right?!?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289

This is a lot of what you want

I think it only covers Benghazi and dips its toe into E-mails, and it's from a year ago

# ? Sep 13, 2016 20:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›798 »