No one here finds it strange that the mainstream media has been slandering Hillary for the last 20 years...and then suddenly starts calling her things like "saint" and "cool-headed" only in the last 6-12 months? Not even Fox, which is typically republican, could get behind Trump. Why is this? If Trump could somehow get people, any people, not just a majority, but anyone, let alone enough people to make it a close enough call for him to become president...if Trump could get people to vote for him even though all the mainstream media has openly opposed him, what does that say? Does that say that the American people just loved Trump that much? Does it mean that almost half of the participating voters are racist and sexist, as has been alluded to out of confused incomprehension in this very thread? No. It says the American people hated Hillary that much. And apparently, it means that almost half of voters believe the claims about Hillary enough to vote in a rich eccentric instead. So I do not believe the claims against her are baseless, as certain people here have tried to point out. Study Watergate. Study the Vietnam War. Study the Korean War. Study the Pentagon Papers. Learn your history. Our government has been steeped with corruption for fifty years or more. It's not like we have suddenly stopped being corrupt. Hillary is the quintessential establishment politician, and that means she comes with all the corruption our government is known for as part of the package deal. Trump is corrupt too. But he is not Hillary, and half of American says thank goodness for that.
Half who voted, and about 1.5 more people voted for her than him. Neither got a majority, and the half the country didn't vote at all. The only reason FOX turned on Trump (to whatever extent that they did) is because he just came in and started squatting on their territory.
Many people believe a great many things. Most of them because they are told so, whether or not they're true.
No one here finds it strange that the mainstream media has been slandering Hillary for the last 20 years...and then suddenly starts calling her things like "saint" and "cool-headed" only in the last 6-12 months? Not even Fox, which is typically republican, could get behind Trump. Why is this? If Trump could somehow get people, any people, not just a majority, but anyone, let alone enough people to make it a close enough call for him to become president...if Trump could get people to vote for him even though all the mainstream media has openly opposed him, what does that say? Does that say that the American people just loved Trump that much? Does it mean that almost half of the participating voters are racist and sexist, as has been alluded to out of confused incomprehension in this very thread? No. It says the American people hated Hillary that much. And apparently, it means that almost half of voters believe the claims about Hillary enough to vote in a rich eccentric instead. So I do not believe the claims against her are baseless, as certain people here have tried to point out. Study Watergate. Study the Vietnam War. Study the Korean War. Study the Pentagon Papers. Learn your history. Our government has been steeped with corruption for fifty years or more. It's not like we have suddenly stopped being corrupt. Hillary is the quintessential establishment politician, and that means she comes with all the corruption our government is known for as part of the package deal. Trump is corrupt too. But he is not Hillary, and half of American says thank goodness for that.
Half who voted, and about 1.5 more people voted for her than him. Neither got a majority, and the half the country didn't vote at all. The only reason FOX turned on Trump (to whatever extent that they did) is because he just came in and started squatting on their territory.
Many people believe a great many things. Most of them because they are told so, whether or not they're true.
Almost half of participating voters still voted for him. The point still stands.
As far as "believe a great many things," the same can be said of both sides of this debate, and he points still stand.
The fact that Hillary lost to Trump--the object of years of comedy and American jokes, with that stupid hairline, and his nasty comments---says nothing about Trump. But it speaks volumes about Hillary.
One more thing: we keep talking about how more individuals voted for Hillary, which is true. But that is because the cities mostly voted for her. Democrats have been campaigning for the cities for years, so this should not surprise anyone. The cities have more population.
1. The mainstream media is not the only media around. Plenty of people online were rooting for Trump. They just weren't journalists.
Also, the mainstream media aren't strictly liberal or Democrat-friendly. Besides the humongous example of Fox, we also have sites like the Washington Times (I'm a frequent reader of the WT), which was tremendously friendly to Trump and invariably hostile to Clinton. You see people criticizing Clinton in the New York Times as well. And Sean Hannity was perfectly willing to give voice to Trump's ideas and help him out.
So no, it's not like the media was working in concert to elect Hillary. It's quite the opposite.
2. If Hillary is guilty of some form of corruption, she can be prosecuted.
Yes, she can.
It is not enough to simply say the system is rigged. It is not enough to list examples of political scandals, like the Vietnam War, that Hillary had nothing to do with. It is not enough to say people are protecting her. To date, I have never heard anyone provide a realistic explanation of how Hillary is immune to prosecution.
a. People complain about Loretta Lynch talking with Bill Clinton. -Well, Lynch promised to do whatever the FBI recommended. Which, in the end, she did. So her decision was handed over to James Comey.
b. People say that Comey was biased in favor of Clinton. -Well, he's a registered Republican and he was the Attorney General during the Bush Administration. That's exactly the profile of somebody who would gladly indict Clinton. And he criticized her heavily during his announcement, even though it wasn't required of him as the FBI director. Why would a Clinton pawn throw out accusations against Clinton when he had no obligation to do so?
c. People say that the entire Republican party is too stupid to get Hillary. -No, they're not that stupid. You can't control half the country without knowing how to play politics.
d. People say that the entire Republican party is working for Hillary. -No, they're opposed to her. That's why they have attacked her for so long, especially during the campaign.
-We have a Republican-dominated Senate, a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, an entire political party united in its opposition to Hillary Clinton, and a Republican in charge of the FBI. And a conservative Supreme Court, not that it matters for this example. The only branch of government in the Democratic party's control is the presidency, and yet Obama has never offered to pardon Clinton, even though it would be fully within his Constitutional power.
So no, it's not like the government was working in concert to protect Hillary. It's quite the opposite.
Hillary is the quintessential establishment politician, and that means she comes with all the corruption our government is known for as part of the package deal.
Hillary Clinton has been in Congress since 2000. Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since 1991. Bernie Sanders has been involved in politics longer than Hillary, and yet he is more or less universally recognized as a non-corrupt career politician. Corruption is not a requirement for winning an election.
Some people despise career politicians, but the fact that Clinton has been repeatedly elected to public office is not sufficient proof to me that she is bad. If I am to judge somebody's character, I consider it an absolute requirement that I base my judgment on things they have actually said and actually done.
Innuendo, speculation, and guilt by association are not good enough. I need (1) real evidence of (2) real events that (3) had a real impact on (4) real people. Those are the things I find most convincing.
One more thing: we keep talking about how more individuals voted for Hillary, which is true. But that is because the cities mostly voted for her. Democrats have been campaigning for the cities for years, so this should not surprise anyone. The cities have more population.
Here is a voter map by county.
I see your blue and red map and offer you a purple one instead.
One more thing: we keep talking about how more individuals voted for Hillary, which is true. But that is because the cities mostly voted for her. Democrats have been campaigning for the cities for years, so this should not surprise anyone. The cities have more population.
Here is a voter map by county.
I see your blue and red map and offer you a purple one instead.
I know that lots of people here like Hillary and don't believe she is corrupt. I get that. But there are a lot of people that disagree. Apparently enough of American disagree to the point enough to elect an orange haired wacko instead.
My point about Vietnam was not that she was involved...obviously. My point was that placing trust in our judiciary system when it comes to politicians is naive because it's not like our system has always pulled through for us. Who's to say this is or is not another situation like the Korean War, where everyone is working to cover it up and we just don't have those one or two people who put their neck on the line to stand up against corruption this time? There is no way of knowing, because our system has a history of being screwed up.
And don't cry conspiracy theorist. The Pentagon Papers are not a conspiracy theory, they were released fully to the public in 2011 by the government with the onset of Wikileaks.
Just in case you really want to lose faith in our system, check out what we (our government, not individual soldiers) did to the Asians in Korea and Vietnam.
1. Innuendo, speculation, and guilt by association are not good enough. I need (1) real evidence of (2) real events that (3) had a real impact on (4) real people. Those are the things I find most convincing.
The only things available to the public during the Watergate scandal was not what you are requesting. They only had media hype from both sides.
It wasn't until 40 years after the culprits were found guilty by a judge who refused to accept bribes from Nixon that everything was made available to the public. For corruption and scandal that was never verified in a court of law? Who knows if we will ever know.
But the doubt is there and real and warranted and not as far fetched as the media would (now) have us believe.
The red areas on that map are mostly open land and grass. I keep hearing this, that the "real" America is in the middle of the country, that apparently the vast majority of the actual population centers are out of touch with the down-home folk of fly-over country. It's crap. I would know, I grew up in it. It's an incurious, isolated, sheltered part of the country, who is fearful of anything that isn't white as a ghost and straight as an arrow.
1. The mainstream media is not the only media around. Plenty of people online were rooting for Trump. They just weren't journalists.
Also, the mainstream media aren't strictly liberal or Democrat-friendly. Besides the humongous example of Fox, we also have sites like the Washington Times (I'm a frequent reader of the WT), which was tremendously friendly to Trump and invariably hostile to Clinton. You see people criticizing Clinton in the New York Times as well. And Sean Hannity was perfectly willing to give voice to Trump's ideas and help him out.
So no, it's not like the media was working in concert to elect Hillary. It's quite the opposite.
500 newspapers/magazines endorsed Hillary as opposed to 26 that endorsed Trump. 82 made no endorsement, 32 endorsed Not Trump, and 1 endorsed Not Hillary.
The red areas on that map are mostly open land and grass. I keep hearing this, that the "real" America is in the middle of the country, that apparently the vast majority of the actual population centers are out of touch with the down-home folk of fly-over country. It's crap. I would know, I grew up in it. It's an incurious, isolated, sheltered part of the country, who is fearful of anything that isn't white as a ghost and straight as an arrow.
I have lived right smack dab in the middle of the U.S. my entire life. I'm from a small town and feel uncomfortable in a big city. Very few people I know and have lived around fit your stereotype and I would greatly appreciate if you stop lumping us all in one group.
@mashedtaters: I don't object to the notion that there is corruption in our government. I object to the uncritical assumption that individuals are guilty, without evidence. I apply the same standard to Trump--this isn't just about Clinton. I don't just assume Trump is guilty of all the accusations people have made. Accusations simply aren't enough for me. If I don't have proof, I don't believe.
You don't even say what crime you think Hillary is guilty of. You just assume she's done something wrong, because she's part of the government. You're convinced that it happened, but you don't know what "it" is.
My point was that placing trust in our judiciary system when it comes to politicians is naive because it's not like our system has always pulled through for us. Who's to say this is or is not another situation like the Korean War, where everyone is working to cover it up and we just don't have those one or two people who put their neck on the line to stand up against corruption this time?
It only takes a single person to send incriminating documents to the media or Wikileaks. Revealing a conspiracy is not hard in the digital age.
And it seems that a lot of them find ways to do so without putting their necks on the line. We get leaked documents all the time. Wikileaks is nothing but leaks, and there's more material there than one person could read in their entire lives.
The red areas on that map are mostly open land and grass. I keep hearing this, that the "real" America is in the middle of the country, that apparently the vast majority of the actual population centers are out of touch with the down-home folk of fly-over country. It's crap. I would know, I grew up in it. It's an incurious, isolated, sheltered part of the country, who is fearful of anything that isn't white as a ghost and straight as an arrow.
I have lived right smack dab in the middle of the U.S. my entire life. I'm from a small town and feel uncomfortable in a big city. Very few people I know and have lived around fit your stereotype and I would greatly appreciate if you stop lumping us all in one group.
And I grew up in a town of 500 and it describes nearly everyone. The point is, it's perfectly fine to lump cities and the coast as "elites", but the moment you say something about "middle America", you've gone too far. Well, I have bona-fides in growing up in rural America, and I saw what I saw and know what I know about it. It's entirely possible that this is simply a personality difference between us that is impossible to rectify in a online conversation, which is fine. I'm not interested in doing so anyway.
So going back a few pages in this thread, why does the American government still trade and purchase goods from these Arab countries that enslave humans, kill Gays and treat woman like trash?
Because some of them let the US put bases on their soil or are otherwise considered allies, which trumps the US's concern for human rights every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
BTW, if you don't name which countries you're talking about, one would be tempted to believe you think this is a generally accurate descriptor of all "Arab" countries.
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Libya, Jordan, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Kosovo, Bahrain and Qatar.
I put a couple of European and African countries in there so you do not assume I'm a racist.
And I believe he purposefully sent Pence to "Hamilton" to set a different narrative on the News than the actual news concerning Trump the world should have been focused on - his $25M settlement of his fraud trail for his fake university scam. So Trump sends Pence there in apublic way knowing that he (Trump) is really really unpopular in New York and expecting a reaction to pretend to be butthurt about. Then this guy, who has never apologized in his life, asks the cast of Hamilton for an apology. And that's the news and the scam isn't mentioned.
Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1989 and formally in 2011, broadcasting media has not been required show non-partisan coverage of issues. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Radio and TV stations fall under this. In other words, their endorsements go to the highest bidder.
Most TV stations are owned by the "Big 6" and endorse according to the instruction they receive from those companies. Those endorsements are usually swayed by the money received from campaigners. It changes as the money flows in, but you can generally tell that certain stations favor one party/candidate over the other.
For example, CNN is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner also owns TBS, TNT, and Sports illustrated times. Comcast owns NBC, NBCSN, and even the weather channel.
TV and Radio stations don't exactly endorse a certain candidate, but they certainly favor one over the other. In this case, it was definitely Hillary. Even Fox, which has always had a reputation for being Republican, couldn't get fully behind Trump and showed favoritism for Hillary as a sort of "well, she is better than Trump, but we still despise her."
I agree that most of the movement for Trump was a majorly online movement. It was not through the mainstream media of the Big 6 or through the newspapers.
The media online is currently protected by net neutrality laws which prevent companies from exerting the control over what you see on the internet like they do in TV and Radio. Companies can still publish and pay for articles and favoritism, but it is up to you to decide what you view.
2. People seem to be missing the fact that the popular vote is a product of the Electoral College. Campaigns and turnout would be much different if the presidency is decided by popular vote, particularly Republican turnout in California (far and away the biggest state and its not even close) and NY. There is a reason Bill Clinton advised the Democrats that they needed to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, her advisers laughed at him. The amount spent on ads in the most populous states would skyrocket in a popular vote system, considering that none of the three biggest states are even close to being purple. Unless the difference in the popular vote was around 5 million, it is hard to take claims of injustice seriously when there are so many variables to account for.
As opposed to now, where all the money and campaigning takes place in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
This actually has a moderating effect, and makes candidates campaign for the median citizen. Hence the electoral college generally being a safeguard against the extremes.
And I believe he purposefully sent Pence to "Hamilton" to set a different narrative on the News than the actual news concerning Trump the world should have been focused on - his $25M settlement of his fraud trail for his fake university scam. So Trump sends Pence there in apublic way knowing that he (Trump) is really really unpopular in New York and expecting a reaction to pretend to be butthurt about. Then this guy, who has never apologized in his life, asks the cast of Hamilton for an apology. And that's the news and the scam isn't mentioned.
Let's try to avoid crazy conspiracy theories
I think he was trolling them when he said about theater being safe space
1. The mainstream media is not the only media around. Plenty of people online were rooting for Trump. They just weren't journalists.
Also, the mainstream media aren't strictly liberal or Democrat-friendly. Besides the humongous example of Fox, we also have sites like the Washington Times (I'm a frequent reader of the WT), which was tremendously friendly to Trump and invariably hostile to Clinton. You see people criticizing Clinton in the New York Times as well. And Sean Hannity was perfectly willing to give voice to Trump's ideas and help him out.
Fox is considered to be a "response" to the mainstream media, and the Washington Times is about as far from a mainstream news source as possible. I'm pretty sure it was founded by Moonies.
1. a. People complain about Loretta Lynch talking with Bill Clinton. -Well, Lynch promised to do whatever the FBI recommended. Which, in the end, she did. So her decision was handed over to James Comey.
I think to most people the fact that Clinton had the gall to have that conversation in the first place is just as damning. The fact that she probably didn't do anything criminal does not make the fact that Bill Clinton approached the Attorney General any less worrisome, and it certainly doesn't excuse the fact that she destroyed her server the minute she found out about a possible investigation.
And I believe he purposefully sent Pence to "Hamilton" to set a different narrative on the News than the actual news concerning Trump the world should have been focused on - his $25M settlement of his fraud trail for his fake university scam. So Trump sends Pence there in apublic way knowing that he (Trump) is really really unpopular in New York and expecting a reaction to pretend to be butthurt about. Then this guy, who has never apologized in his life, asks the cast of Hamilton for an apology. And that's the news and the scam isn't mentioned.
Let's try to avoid crazy conspiracy theories
That is actually one of the least far fetched conspiracy theories there are. The BBC came up with the exact same conclusion
Well, I'm happy Donald Trump won. Besides the fact that you haven't seen Democrats so angry since slavery was abolished, I'm looking forward to the rise of American nationalism, the flowering of the dollar and resulting economic boom, the stripping of victim identity and safe spaces, and the renewed enforcement of American sovereignty. It will also be very nice to have the 'affordable' care act overturned so I don't have to pay a $700 deductible every month anymore.
And I believe he purposefully sent Pence to "Hamilton" to set a different narrative on the News than the actual news concerning Trump the world should have been focused on - his $25M settlement of his fraud trail for his fake university scam. So Trump sends Pence there in apublic way knowing that he (Trump) is really really unpopular in New York and expecting a reaction to pretend to be butthurt about. Then this guy, who has never apologized in his life, asks the cast of Hamilton for an apology. And that's the news and the scam isn't mentioned.
Let's try to avoid crazy conspiracy theories
That is actually one of the least far fetched conspiracy theories there are. The BBC came up with the exact same conclusion
Its absolutely a conspiracy theory, since it is based on nothing but assumption. Also it is one thing to say he used the opportunity to deflect attention and another to say he hatched a secret plot to send Mike Pence into the theater perfectly anticipating that the cast would quickly prepare a lecture to give him so that he could deflect criticism away from his settlement.
Well, I'm happy Donald Trump won. Besides the fact that you haven't seen Democrats so angry since slavery was abolished, I'm looking forward to the rise of American nationalism, the flowering of the dollar and resulting economic boom, the stripping of victim identity and safe spaces, and the renewed enforcement of American sovereignty. It will also be very nice to have the 'affordable' care act overturned so I don't have to pay a $700 deductible every month anymore.
While I, and most rational observers in the past year, agree that the ACA should be (and likely will be) seriously amended or replaced, somehow I doubt Trump will cause the end of safe spaces. If anything, he will make political correctness worse in response to his crassness.
As much as I dislike much of the political correctness culture, electing someone who lacks basic decency won't make it better. In fact, it will give purveyors of political correctness encouragement and confirmation that what they do is appropriate. Being overly politically incorrect is just as dangerous as being overly politically correct. It will just create a worse response. Basically an arms race of emotional bullshit.
Also, the economy was unlikely to improve significantly under either president considering the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates in the coming months. Even if Trump was marginally better than Clinton on the economy (which is actually questionable considering his calls for a trade war) economic growth will slow down anyway as it becomes harder to borrow money. I just hope that Paul Ryan and co oppose Trump's trade policies to soften the blow.
@mashedtaters: I don't object to the notion that there is corruption in our government. I object to the uncritical assumption that individuals are guilty, without evidence. I apply the same standard to Trump--this isn't just about Clinton. I don't just assume Trump is guilty of all the accusations people have made. Accusations simply aren't enough for me. If I don't have proof, I don't believe.
You don't even say what crime you think Hillary is guilty of. You just assume she's done something wrong, because she's part of the government. You're convinced that it happened, but you don't know what "it" is.
My point was that placing trust in our judiciary system when it comes to politicians is naive because it's not like our system has always pulled through for us. Who's to say this is or is not another situation like the Korean War, where everyone is working to cover it up and we just don't have those one or two people who put their neck on the line to stand up against corruption this time?
It only takes a single person to send incriminating documents to the media or Wikileaks. Revealing a conspiracy is not hard in the digital age.
And it seems that a lot of them find ways to do so without putting their necks on the line. We get leaked documents all the time. Wikileaks is nothing but leaks, and there's more material there than one person could read in their entire lives.
There is no way of knowing, because our system has a history of being screwed up.
This is what I'm talking about. If "there is no way of knowing," then what conclusions do we draw?
None.
That's not being "naive." That's the scientific method.
Conclusions require evidence. There are no exceptions, and there are no substitutions.
Exactly. I don't say what I don't like about her or what crimes I believe she has committed. This is intentional. There is plenty of stuff about her elsewhere online.
I am trying to accomplish a couple of things by most of my posts.
1. Portraying Hillary as she is viewed by the side opposite to most of the people in this thread as an explanation as to why Americans voted in Trump, and trying to communicate that it's not as irrational as the media and many people here have tried to portray.
2. Convey my belief that there is little to no difference in the corruption between the two candidates, and that if you are going side with Hillary because you don't like Trump's corruption, people on the other side feel the same way just as strongly about Hillary. In essence, those people are following the same logic that led many people to vote for Hillary.
Comments
Many people believe a great many things. Most of them because they are told so, whether or not they're true.
As far as "believe a great many things," the same can be said of both sides of this debate, and he points still stand.
The fact that Hillary lost to Trump--the object of years of comedy and American jokes, with that stupid hairline, and his nasty comments---says nothing about Trump. But it speaks volumes about Hillary.
Any other candidate would have beaten Trump.
I know! I saw that!
It's so freaking cool!!!!
Here is a voter map by county.
The mainstream media is not the only media around. Plenty of people online were rooting for Trump. They just weren't journalists.
Also, the mainstream media aren't strictly liberal or Democrat-friendly. Besides the humongous example of Fox, we also have sites like the Washington Times (I'm a frequent reader of the WT), which was tremendously friendly to Trump and invariably hostile to Clinton. You see people criticizing Clinton in the New York Times as well. And Sean Hannity was perfectly willing to give voice to Trump's ideas and help him out.
So no, it's not like the media was working in concert to elect Hillary. It's quite the opposite.
2.
If Hillary is guilty of some form of corruption, she can be prosecuted.
Yes, she can.
It is not enough to simply say the system is rigged. It is not enough to list examples of political scandals, like the Vietnam War, that Hillary had nothing to do with. It is not enough to say people are protecting her. To date, I have never heard anyone provide a realistic explanation of how Hillary is immune to prosecution.
a. People complain about Loretta Lynch talking with Bill Clinton.
-Well, Lynch promised to do whatever the FBI recommended. Which, in the end, she did. So her decision was handed over to James Comey.
b. People say that Comey was biased in favor of Clinton.
-Well, he's a registered Republican and he was the Attorney General during the Bush Administration. That's exactly the profile of somebody who would gladly indict Clinton. And he criticized her heavily during his announcement, even though it wasn't required of him as the FBI director. Why would a Clinton pawn throw out accusations against Clinton when he had no obligation to do so?
c. People say that the entire Republican party is too stupid to get Hillary.
-No, they're not that stupid. You can't control half the country without knowing how to play politics.
d. People say that the entire Republican party is working for Hillary.
-No, they're opposed to her. That's why they have attacked her for so long, especially during the campaign.
-We have a Republican-dominated Senate, a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, an entire political party united in its opposition to Hillary Clinton, and a Republican in charge of the FBI. And a conservative Supreme Court, not that it matters for this example. The only branch of government in the Democratic party's control is the presidency, and yet Obama has never offered to pardon Clinton, even though it would be fully within his Constitutional power.
So no, it's not like the government was working in concert to protect Hillary. It's quite the opposite.
3. Hillary Clinton has been in Congress since 2000. Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since 1991. Bernie Sanders has been involved in politics longer than Hillary, and yet he is more or less universally recognized as a non-corrupt career politician. Corruption is not a requirement for winning an election.
Some people despise career politicians, but the fact that Clinton has been repeatedly elected to public office is not sufficient proof to me that she is bad. If I am to judge somebody's character, I consider it an absolute requirement that I base my judgment on things they have actually said and actually done.
Innuendo, speculation, and guilt by association are not good enough. I need (1) real evidence of (2) real events that (3) had a real impact on (4) real people. Those are the things I find most convincing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11?client=safari
My point about Vietnam was not that she was involved...obviously. My point was that placing trust in our judiciary system when it comes to politicians is naive because it's not like our system has always pulled through for us. Who's to say this is or is not another situation like the Korean War, where everyone is working to cover it up and we just don't have those one or two people who put their neck on the line to stand up against corruption this time? There is no way of knowing, because our system has a history of being screwed up.
And don't cry conspiracy theorist. The Pentagon Papers are not a conspiracy theory, they were released fully to the public in 2011 by the government with the onset of Wikileaks.
https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Just in case you really want to lose faith in our system, check out what we (our government, not individual soldiers) did to the Asians in Korea and Vietnam.
It wasn't until 40 years after the culprits were found guilty by a judge who refused to accept bribes from Nixon that everything was made available to the public. For corruption and scandal that was never verified in a court of law? Who knows if we will ever know.
But the doubt is there and real and warranted and not as far fetched as the media would (now) have us believe.
500 newspapers/magazines endorsed Hillary as opposed to 26 that endorsed Trump. 82 made no endorsement, 32 endorsed Not Trump, and 1 endorsed Not Hillary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
You don't even say what crime you think Hillary is guilty of. You just assume she's done something wrong, because she's part of the government. You're convinced that it happened, but you don't know what "it" is. It only takes a single person to send incriminating documents to the media or Wikileaks. Revealing a conspiracy is not hard in the digital age.
And it seems that a lot of them find ways to do so without putting their necks on the line. We get leaked documents all the time. Wikileaks is nothing but leaks, and there's more material there than one person could read in their entire lives. This is what I'm talking about. If "there is no way of knowing," then what conclusions do we draw?
None.
That's not being "naive." That's the scientific method.
Conclusions require evidence. There are no exceptions, and there are no substitutions.
I put a couple of European and African countries in there so you do not assume I'm a racist.
Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1989 and formally in 2011, broadcasting media has not been required show non-partisan coverage of issues.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Radio and TV stations fall under this. In other words, their endorsements go to the highest bidder.
Most TV stations are owned by the "Big 6" and endorse according to the instruction they receive from those companies. Those endorsements are usually swayed by the money received from campaigners. It changes as the money flows in, but you can generally tell that certain stations favor one party/candidate over the other.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?client=safari
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
For example, CNN is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner also owns TBS, TNT, and Sports illustrated times. Comcast owns NBC, NBCSN, and even the weather channel.
TV and Radio stations don't exactly endorse a certain candidate, but they certainly favor one over the other. In this case, it was definitely Hillary. Even Fox, which has always had a reputation for being Republican, couldn't get fully behind Trump and showed favoritism for Hillary as a sort of "well, she is better than Trump, but we still despise her."
I agree that most of the movement for Trump was a majorly online movement. It was not through the mainstream media of the Big 6 or through the newspapers.
The media online is currently protected by net neutrality laws which prevent companies from exerting the control over what you see on the internet like they do in TV and Radio. Companies can still publish and pay for articles and favoritism, but it is up to you to decide what you view.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality
I think to most people the fact that Clinton had the gall to have that conversation in the first place is just as damning. The fact that she probably didn't do anything criminal does not make the fact that Bill Clinton approached the Attorney General any less worrisome, and it certainly doesn't excuse the fact that she destroyed her server the minute she found out about a possible investigation.
Donald Trump's art of deflection
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38045852
As much as I dislike much of the political correctness culture, electing someone who lacks basic decency won't make it better. In fact, it will give purveyors of political correctness encouragement and confirmation that what they do is appropriate. Being overly politically incorrect is just as dangerous as being overly politically correct. It will just create a worse response. Basically an arms race of emotional bullshit.
Also, the economy was unlikely to improve significantly under either president considering the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates in the coming months. Even if Trump was marginally better than Clinton on the economy (which is actually questionable considering his calls for a trade war) economic growth will slow down anyway as it becomes harder to borrow money. I just hope that Paul Ryan and co oppose Trump's trade policies to soften the blow.
I am trying to accomplish a couple of things by most of my posts.
1. Portraying Hillary as she is viewed by the side opposite to most of the people in this thread as an explanation as to why Americans voted in Trump, and trying to communicate that it's not as irrational as the media and many people here have tried to portray.
2. Convey my belief that there is little to no difference in the corruption between the two candidates, and that if you are going side with Hillary because you don't like Trump's corruption, people on the other side feel the same way just as strongly about Hillary. In essence, those people are following the same logic that led many people to vote for Hillary.