If Hillary is elected...

[Colonel]

Agreed.
On a scale of 1 to 10, where a 10 is a great president and a 1 is a disaster, Hillary may be about a 4. I'd rate Trump a 1. The best outcome would be a gain in popularity by a third party and the two major parties losing their hegemony over American politics.

I agree.
I was listening to the debates on the radio during the race to nomination as I am surprised how poor the candidates are.
There needs to be change I think and these two aren't it.
When I heard Trump running for President - I actually laughed. I never thought he was a real contender.

 

[PLC1]

I agree.
I was listening to the debates on the radio during the race to nomination as I am surprised how poor the candidates are.
There needs to be change I think and these two aren't it.
When I heard Trump running for President - I actually laughed. I never thought he was a real contender.

I can't say it really went down this way, but it sounds about right:

 

[Hammerhead]

Hillary may be about a 4.

Hillary gets a 0.

She sells out the American people - she accepts bribes and eagerly serves foreign dictators and Wall Street crooks. She's the worst.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/

 

[PLC1]

Hillary gets a 0.

She sells out the American people - she accepts bribes and eagerly serves foreign dictators and Wall Street crooks. She's the worst.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/

So, if your assessment is correct, then we have the choice of two zeros.

I'm not voting for either one of them.

But I still think Hillary would be preferable to Trump.

 

[Hammerhead]

I can't say it really went down this way, but it sounds about right:

Sure politicians suck, but there's no doubt Trump really threatens the establishment.

Consider the constant media attacks from the corporate media: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...instagram_collude_to_defeat_trump_389131.html

 

[PLC1]

Sure politicians suck, but there's no doubt Trump really threatens the establishment.

Consider the constant media attacks from the corporate media: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...instagram_collude_to_defeat_trump_389131.html

yeah, that darned corporate media keeps reporting all of the stupid things Trump has said. Those execs who use Twitter to communicate are posing a real problem for Trump, too. The Tweets from Trump himself are the worst.

 

[Hammerhead]

yeah, that darned corporate media keeps reporting all of the stupid things Trump has said.

Do you think the corporate media treats Trump fairly? Be honest.

Remember when the corporate media tried to link Trump with David Duke? It was all based on lies.

 

[PLC1]

Do you think the corporate media treats Trump fairly? Be honest.

Remember when the corporate media tried to link Trump with David Duke? It was all based on lies.

The "corporate media" gives Trump more free publicity than anyone else. Seems to me they've treated him very well.

Did they try to "link him" with David Duke? No, I don't remember that. I do remember Trump first saying he didn't run for office because he didn't want to be associated with Duke, then later saying he didn't know who Duke was.

But, then flip flops are a way of life with The Donald.

 

[Colonel]

@PLC1 is right.
Trump has been given a lot of media time - in fact we hear more about Donald Trump over here than the current President and other high ranking officials.
Exposure to the media is all that a politician needs to get noticed - whether the media portrays them in a good or bad light is another thing; at least the media is on them and not the opposition.

 

[Colonel]

@PLC1 is right.
Trump has been given a lot of media time - in fact we hear more about Donald Trump over here than the current President and other high ranking officials.
Exposure to the media is all that a politician needs to get noticed - whether the media portrays them in a good or bad light is another thing; at least the media is on them and not the opposition.

Makes sense when you think about it.

 

[Hammerhead]

Seems to me they've treated him very well.

Are you really this out of touch?

Quote: Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”

Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, msm does a lot of time to him but they see to it that he is portrayed negatively while hrc is portrayed as positively as possible.
This extends to photoshopping crowds into her gatherings and ignoring troubling things altogether.
But journalism had been dead a

 

[PLC1]

Are you really this out of touch?

Quote: Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”

Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

Look at results, not intentions. Sure, most of the media thinks Trump would be a disaster. The exposure that they have given him, however, has resulted in free publicity that even his supposed billions could never have bought.
Trump makes some asinine statement, the media is all over it, and the Trumpeteers scramble to say he really meant something else. Trump makes a more reasonable statement, the media twists it into something else, and the Trumpeteers are quick to point out how the media is unfairly spinning his statements. Either way, Trump gets the publicity and his supporters get even more firmly aligned with their candidate. It's a win for Trump either way.

Trump said he could go out on the street and shoot someone without losing any votes. I think he's right about that. The negative publicity isn't hurting him at all.

 

[dogtowner]

Look at results, not intentions. Sure, most of the media thinks Trump would be a disaster. The exposure that they have given him, however, has resulted in free publicity that even his supposed billions could never have bought.
Trump makes some asinine statement, the media is all over it, and the Trumpeteers scramble to say he really meant something else. Trump makes a more reasonable statement, the media twists it into something else, and the Trumpeteers are quick to point out how the media is unfairly spinning his statements. Either way, Trump gets the publicity and his supporters get even more firmly aligned with their candidate. It's a win for Trump either way.

Trump said he could go out on the street and shoot someone without losing any votes. I think he's right about that. The negative publicity isn't hurting him at all.

The MSM does not seem to learn the lesson you paint despite seeing a year's worth of why it's not working.
But the point is that if journalism is intended to be unbiased it's become increasingly more a failure at that.
They have really hurt themselves by getting so very silly trying to make anything at all seem bad. Hyperbole is off the scale and getting worse.
One would think that at some point they would realize that playing it straight would serve their aim better but somehow zealots never stop and think.

 

[PLC1]

The MSM does not seem to learn the lesson you paint despite seeing a year's worth of why it's not working.
But the point is that if journalism is intended to be unbiased it's become increasingly more a failure at that.
They have really hurt themselves by getting so very silly trying to make anything at all seem bad. Hyperbole is off the scale and getting worse.
One would think that at some point they would realize that playing it straight would serve their aim better but somehow zealots never stop and think.

One would think, yes. Trump has said so many things that should have torpedoed his campaign, and yet the media insists on taking other things out of context and making mountains out of molehills. If only they'd concentrate in the real absurdities coming out of his mouth, he'd have less support

The right wing did the same thing during the Obama campaign, focusing on his birth certificate and his supposed Muslim faith and so on instead of simply bringing up his inexperience. Had they simply focused on what was real instead of what was invented, they would have made their point so much better.

Yet, no one seems to learn from those mistakes. Meanwhile, we have a choice between a deeply flawed Democrat and a totally unacceptable and equally liberal Republican candidate. What a sorry situation.