:rolleyes:
As pointed before she is giivng intervews with all. Clinton has not banned any organization from interviews or the press covering her, even Nixon did not do what Trump is doing.
She cherry picks reporters she wants to talk to. She ignores the press actually embedded in her campaign.
Trump has already done so, and since Trump has banned many you are only making a very silly point when talking about her ignoring the press in her campaign.
Then let’s hear your theory for why the media has been nicer to Trump.
Not sure I said that that was the case, only that thanks to false equivalence many times when the media should had condemned Trump the media has not done their duty to properly inform the public.
But train wrecks gets eyeballs. And if bleeds it leads.
I do get worried that most of the media is figuring out that Trump will get them hundreds of those in his presidency and well, the media has to watch their bottom line too. Hence the free publicity Trump has gotten so far.
But I still have to go for what I have mentioned many times: the media wants a horse race, and by hook or by crook they will get it. There is still a lot of money that old time media is expecting to get from that big Trump orange. If in the race Clinton looks to be ahead by much then not even Trump would spend much in a losing effort. It is essential to keep the race close. Regardless if they already know that Trump keeps a list of media enemies. Or perhaps they will like to see yet another Nixon falling from grace as in “the good old days”. For the old time media of course.
The niceness to Trump IMHO includes the normalization of very reprehensible behavior, bigotry, and many other negatives that are bound to leave a very bad legacy in the near future. This is also the result of false equivalence coming from the media that is falling for many of those when reporting about what “he said” and what “she said”.
On the bigotry front I can not forget that in a past election Obama was forced to leave his church because one of the preachers there had very peculiar notions about the blame of 9/11. Obama also had to condemn what the preacher said and what others (with very flimsy connections to Obama) that had either worked or associated with Obama did in the past.
Almost no one in the mainstream media has demanded that Trump repudiates his current more closely (heck, joined to the hip) reprehensible associates. If they did so Trump has just ignore them and one has to conclude that the media is just being too nice by letting that issue go or they are not keeping the pressure in that front when it was a given in the very recent past.
The problem is that outrageous behavior by Trump has reached the dog bites man stage. Like car bombings in Bagdad, they may at one point been front page news but now they happen with such frequency that no one cares, it’s just Trump being Trump. Clinton’s gaffes or fainting spells are less frequent and so when they do come up they are “man bites dog” moments and are higher profile.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi calls for the death of all non Sunni’s (not news). Pope Francis says people who swear at his mother should expect to get bopped in the nose (news). Trump scams people and tries to bribe his way out of it (not news), Clinton call’s 50% of Trump supporters racists (news).
Dr. Oz, a recognized quack, who regularly pushes snake oil health ‘cures,’ called Trump ‘’‘slightly’’ overweight. did he bother to say Trump is also ‘‘slightly demented?’’
he weighs TWO SIXTY SEVEN! bigly heart attack territory, folks…fattest candidate since good old fatso William Howard Taft
according to Rush Medical Center, he’s about as close (at 267>>>their chart shows the ‘‘obese’’ range as 233-303) to being morbidly obese than just merely overweight…check those jowls, the giant paunch…easily findable online.
not a word about it that I could find, other than a CNN crawl that says he’s
“about 230 pounds”!!!
‘‘about,’’ give or take a few bowling balls
Even the comsymp MSNBC ‘health’ expert said he’s only ‘‘slightly overweight,’’ but he’s thirty FOUR pounds into the obese category. that’s what they do, though. always trying to put lipstick on the pig, when the porker is DT.
meanwhile, CNN doesn’t even MENTION this in its mostly whitewash job. the one good thing in the story is quoting conservative scholar Norm Ornstein on the way he’s playing the media:
Ornstein ‘‘tweeted on Wednesday afternoon that Trump ‘is playing you guys’ in the media ‘like a Stradivarius.’ He called it ‘pathetic’ that the exam results were getting so much attention instead of other Trump-related stories.’’
I admit to my own bias, but it’s not in favor of Hillary, it’s in favor of not having a deranged, racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal sociopath taking the reins, as it would appear to be in the process of happening. The depths of willful ignorance of the
typical American information consumer reaches depths unforetold as of late, with that of the typical republican ignoramus achieving delusional status:
43% of republicans think Obama is a Muslim, and, as of Aug. 11, 2016>>>
41% of republicans STILL think he was NOT born in the USA!!!
does anyone need to know anything more about the benighted state of the adherents to the party of Lincoln?
It’s not just republicans. Americans in general are becoming increasingly incompetent voters. There are “independents” out there who are not as ideologically insane, but they revel in their own ignorance. This is a country in which increasing numbers of parents believe that vaccines are dangerous, that global warming is a hoax, that slavery really wasn’t all that inhumane, that evolution is just a proposed idea and that intelligent design is a valid counter-theory. You even have people barging into Miami city hall meetings demanding that aerial spraying be stopped because they refuse to believe that mosquitoes can transmit the Zika virus. Voters can tell you a lot about fantasy football and Dancing With the Stars but they can’t even find the fucking Pacific Ocean.
It’s mostly republicans. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of fucking stupid liberals. But the democratic party doesn’t exactly use those people as attack dogs. They aren’t bowing to the whims of those radical fringes. They aren’t actively encouraging the anti-GMO or anti-vax nutters. If you find a raving conspiracy theorist shouting about how everything government-related is a hoax, 99% of the time they’re voting republican. Case in point: the democrats nominated a sane person. The republicans didn’t. This was obvious 4 years ago, and it has literally only gotten worse since.
That’s just touting the fact that the Democrats are run by their elites instead of the grassroots as some kind of virtue. Yes, it does keep the stupid out, but it also keeps the democracy out. The GOP has the opposite problem right now, the angry mob is setting their agenda.
“elite”? You mean, someone who can walk & chew gum simultaneously? Someone who’s been known to read a book–even just occasionally?
According to this NPR story, he weighs 236.
What’s your source for 267?
I mean the donors, politicians, and “experts” set the Democratic agenda. That makes for a smarter party, but one less representative of their base.
For some reason there was confusion over this, probably from one source misreporting that got repeated. The other day multiple media sources were saying 267, they’ve now corrected it to 236 a la the NYT.
The Dem base keeps voting for smart people, unlike in your party, is that what you’re telling us?
You just may be on to something there.
The Dem base votes for the establishment choice. The GOP base does not always do that.
Oh, you were *so *close …
Close to being wrong? Phew, dodged a bullet there. The fact that the Democrats are now the “fall in line” party while the Republicans are the unruly bunch has been at the center of most analysis of our politics since 2010. If it’s wrong, then you could write a very interesting dissertation on why you think it’s wrong.
You’re sure it’s that, and not only one party respecting and trusting intelligence and capability - hell, even *recognizing *it?
'Cause that fits the facts far better.
Well, on the good side at least it won’t mean elevating any junior Senators to the Presidency based on a single good speech anymore.
Back to the subject at hand, I can only shake my head at liberals complaining about media bias. They act as if they are entitled to have the media on their side. Meanwhile, I’m annoyed that we couldn’t catch a break with the media back when we actually had good candidates.