“It’s alarming that national media outlets and professional journalists can be so biased over the way news stories are crafted and presented in the race for the White House. That’s what the latest batch of WikiLeaks emails suggests,”
The collusion between major media outlets and the favored candidate, in this case Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, runs counter to the integrity upheld daily by a majority of hard-working community journalists in the United States,”
To date, the national media has acted more like a Clinton lapdog in its selective reporting on the campaign trail than a Clinton watchdog,” the editorial wrote, later adding, “Accountability is the only thing that can force Clinton to honor the best interests of America. And it must come from an unbiased media.”
Editorial in the The Lowell Sun, in the Democrat state of Massachusetts
New WikiLeaks Revelations Show Media Acting As ‘Clinton Lapdog’ (WesternJournalism)
Graph via Fox News
Meanwhile…
Report: Indictment “likely” in FBI’s Clinton Foundation probe https://t.co/TlMqXmARNW pic.twitter.com/9BLxHW7HYB
— The Hill (@thehill) November 3, 2016
The Clearest (No Spin) Summary of FBI Report on Hillary Clinton Email (Sharyl Attkinson)
The O Reilly Factor.
Now there’s an example of unbiased media.
+100
+94% you mean
+ loofa
You have to love all these pro-Trump posts by Broadsheet. Well done Bodger, great job.
In all honest she’s equally as bad as him, in fact worse. The reason, only reason, id vote her is because she actually as political experience. But she’s way worse in every way apart from that.
no she’s not. false equivalence. she’s a washington politician. he’s a lunatic.
Ah now, she’s not worse than him. She’s horrific and isn’t fit to be president. But in a sick and twisted world where one of them has to win, she’s head and shoulders above him in every regard.
Hillary thinks human-caused climate change is real. That’s all she has going for her, in my eyes. But that’s really important.
One of the worst GUARANTEED outcomes with Hillary is maintaining or accelerating the war mongering, drone striking status quo. One of the worst POSSIBLE outcomes is if she triggers a conflict with Russia by enforcing a no fly zone in Syria. And that in turn leads to a war between two large countries who happen to have nuclear weapons.
One of the POSSIBLE outcomes with Trump (and to be honest I could see it happening) is if he marries his impulsive authoritarian gibber gabber with the extensive surveillance apparatus and drone striking status quo that already exists. One of the GUARANTEED outcomes with Trump is that he would pull America out of the Paris Climate Change agreement, which I imagine might delight Bodger, but would have disastrous consequences for civilisation in general.
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/793930986316697600
Pseudo tactics from Rory, cut out the charade and panto bud, say what you mean, your blatantly head over heels for Hillary
So she’s actually worse than Trump then, but you’d still vote for her?
Critical of Clinton =/= pro-Trump
Hence the fairly equal amount of critical posts about Trump.
Oh.
A case of ‘it goes without saying’.
When it’s a two horse race and you post only the negative (and often spurious) stories of one candidate, I think it’s fair to assume you back the other guy. It may not be accurate, but there’s been no reason to believe otherwise.
Yawn.
Awesome response, man. Really got to the heart of the discussion.
It does when it’s one or the other about to be president. Next week criticising Hillary won’t be supporting Trump but right now that’s exactly what it amounts to and all it could possibly achieve is to help him in the election.
They’re not even pro-Trump, they’re pro-fairness. Coverage of the election has been slanted in the extreme, that’s undeniable.
If there’s a corrective to slanted or bad coverage, this ain’t it.
Can you suggest a better solution to dissemination of false information than dissemination of true information?
That would be great, actually. Are they going to start any time soon?
What’s false about the above post?
The O’Reilly Factor graph? The Hill story? The there was the Michael Moore clip and the conspiracy nut guy and the weird ‘impression’ of the Irish reporters. The wikileaks stuff never seems to pan out as explosively as everyone seems to want it to, usually proving that Clinton is running a shrewd and effective campaign more than anything else. Meanwhile, Trump wants to ban an entire religion from the US and has been accused of, what, 12 sexual assaults? He thinks blacks are lazy and hes expressed some weird stuff about Jews. He scammed students at his self-names university. He boasted about dodging taxes. I know it must grind some people’s teeth that the Clinton stuff seems like such small potatoes, but hey, now there’s an ant-Clinton storm about… some emails nobody’s even read yet? Whoa, how horrible! Trump supporters must be praying for Trrump to just keep his mouth shut for the rest of the week.
“shrewd and effective campaign”
Shill central
Bodger! Mr Reality is making more substantive and incisive critiques of Clinton’s policies you could use! I think they raise the bar in terms of careful and thoughtful argument against her presidency!
I think your problem Nigel could be that you’ve allowed yourself into being conditioned by the media into thinking “the Clinton stuff seems like such small potatoes”.
Acting as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 she compromised US National security by using a private server which was hacked. Before handing over the server to FBI she deletes 33,000 of those emails claiming they were all private. Subsequent email leaks have shown she lied about that. That’s not small potatoes whatever way you look at it.
On top of that there’s the ongoing class action law suit crowd funded by thousands of Bernie supporters against the DNC with a strong case claiming fraud was used to swing the nomination for Clinton. Virtually ignored in the media.
I think the real discussion we should be having is how has it come to this? – that the only 2 candidate choices presented to the US electorate are so deplorable, out of touch with the average American and unworthy of presidential office.
*closes eyes and repeats…… safespace-safespace-safespace*
It’s great isn’t it
Trump is an appalling candidate, but so is Clinton in an entirely different way. She is in the pockets of Wall St and the neocons. Her presidency will bring further inequality to the US and encourage similar practices in Europe. The miserable, poverty and war stricken people of Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan will see their misfortune continue, and probably be exacerbated. There will very probably be a catastrophic confrontation with Iran and possibly Russia. Of course Israel will remain miraculously untouched in the region. She is a blood thirsty war monger and is clueless about the lives of ordinary people. The corrupt US media will now double down to ensure victory for their proprietors. Go Hillary!
that’s american politicians for you.
how do people not yet that that’s how Washington works?! like it’s not great but she’s not a beastmonster from the depths, she’s a fairly typical centrist democrat.
Haha LOL she’s a war monger who carpet bombed Lybia, Iraq, Yemen and Syria and you call her centrist and not a monster..
I ask you this, has trump started any wars?
“she’s a fairly typical centrist democrat.”
What are you on?…
Modern regressive left “thinking” * is along the lines of…. You criticise Clinton, therefore you are a Trump supporter!
* “thinking” used very loosely
“If it quacks like a duck…”
Bodger could always prove us wrong by posting negative articles about Trump. I mean, this very article is a complaint about biased media.
Don’t have any issue with criticising Clinton and not suggesting Clinton is a squeaky clean political candidate; but scraping the barrel for dirt to fling at her in the hope of undermining her candidacy on the eve of a relatively tight election is childish, reckless and thus, pro-Trump.
…by your logic.
Maybe BS signed that petition to have Bernie step in, who knows…. I don’t anyway.
This isn’t criticising Clinton. She gets criticised plenty. This is attacking, monstering and ratf@king. The idea that anything in the wikileaks or connected to the e-mail thing is remotely equivalent to comic-book grotesquerie of Trump is risible. Even that Hill story about the indictment is turning out to be dodgy as heck. Too late, though, responsible biased media has it everywhere! Broadsheet reported, you fact-check of you could be bothered!
“It’s so dodgy”
Like Hillary making her closing speech under criminal investigation
At this point you’re just cut-and-pasting. Actually I suspect you’ve been doing a lot of cut-and-pasting.
How dare he cut and paste
When you use alt-right sound-bytes like ‘regressive left’ you come across as uninformed tbh.
LOL What ever mate
but when Bush was president and Fox were his cheerleaders, that was fair and balanced all-American coverage?!
as obama said, quit whining about losing
No, that was also bad. Broadsheet didn’t exist at the time, to my knowledge, so it’s difficult to speculate as to a hypocritical Broadsheet stance on that matter. On the other hand it’s a simple matter of observation to expose the hypocritical stance of the liberal leftists on Wikileaks’ exposure of dark secrets.
I love it, Bodger is Red Pilling the sh*t out of broadsheet LOL
“I don’t vote with my vagina. This is bigger than that” – Susan Sarandon
Context from BBC Newsnight:
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794099019870076928
new found respect for Susan Sarandon! The real issues western media outlets should be talking about but refuse to do so. Instead, they distract the public with the dirty politics theatre of Trump and Clinton.
Cheers for the link!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LoGej6BqMc&feature=youtu.be&t=53s
(I clicked to the youtube video from your link)
+1… cool :)
Broadsheet really is sinking and sinking.
There’s fairness and there’s false equivalency.
There’s news sites/blogs and there’s fevered conspiracy nuts who make themselves look like idiots by pretending there’s some kind of balance to be struck between the guy bragging about sexually assaulting women, banning Muslims, 2nd amendment remedies and ignoring election results – and a woman who fupped up her email account.
Journalists who think fairness = treating both those things the same are NOT journalists.
I heard a comment yesterday about this self-imposed “balance” meaning that if one candidate said the earth was flat then instead of just calling them on it the headline would be “opinions differ on shape of planet”.
ahjayzis, the story is not just about the server but the Clinton Foundation (which Ireland has donated millions to). It is all there in Wikileaks. No tin foil hats, no conspiracies just obvious corruption.
So you’d be a Trump supporter then?
You’re aware the time and place for vetting Clinton was during the primaries? I wanted Bernie to win, but Hillary did.
Now there’s a choice of two.
You don’t have to like or understand that system, i think it’s a fix myself. Corrupt and utterly captured by the two parties.
But it’s still only a choice between President Trump and President Clinton.
If you’re not for Hillary, you’re for Trump, simple as.
It really is a choice of the lesser of two evils isn’t it? Who’s the least dangerous.
Although at first I thought Trump was worse than Hillary, I now think that she’s the riskiest bet.
Looks like a lot of people are coming to the same conclusion, not sure about Bodger, but surely s(he)’s entitled to question a presidential candidate without being pilloried?
How is she the riskiest bet? Honestly, that’s is an insane thing to say.
With Hilary you get Obama’s third term, the status quo, an ungovernable country with the Republicans in the House jamming everything up. Not great, but not catastrophic.
With Trump you get America arming Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons, a repudiation of every trade deal it’s done with the resultant economic sniffs that’ll cause Europe and the rest of the world to catch one whopper of a cold. Marginalisation of Latinos, tacit support of cops killing unarmed black people at will.
And America’s girls will grow up knowing a sexual predator who assaults women, insults them, belittles them won an election.
What are your reasons for supporting the candidate reinforced by Vladimir Putin, praised by Marine Le Pen and backed by every White Supremacist group in the world?
Hello Termagant
Yes I know very well what metadata is and if Digital Signatures were as secure as claimed, they would be used worldwide and Parkgate Business Park in Dublin 8 would also still be populated by Baltimore Technologies.
I should know, I used to work there.
Only the very naive and/or technically illiterate would believe that hacked emails supplied by the Russians have been handed over 100% intact and without modification.
I don’t support Trump but I support his election. Bernie Sanders could have been the Democrat candidate if the Clinton campaign hadn’t rigged the primaries. It’s all there in the Wikileaks.
“I don’t support Trump but I support his election.”
…
That’s the definition of supporting Trump, Bodger.
Broadsheet is an Alt-Right website now. Who knew.
Will you be starting regular columns from Pickup Artists now?
ahjayzis, my opinion holds little sway in
Karl’s Denthe Broadsheet office. I am anti-globalist tbpf.Guess I’ll just get used to being grabbed by the flaps eh bodge?
“Broadsheet is an alt-right website now…”
For someone i assume is against labels you unfairly throw them around all the time.
Trump is the Alt-Right candidate.
Person is for Alt-Right candidate.
Reasonable to assume person is sympathetic towards Alt-Right.
You claim bias whilst being totally bias, you even quoted Hillary with your alt right pejorative, well done
@Bodger He’s not an anti-globalist, he’s a arch-populist with business interests in dozens of countries, who has his products manufactured in sweat-shops in China.
Your anti-globalism is best served by supporting a fraud, tacitly being anti-woman, anti-paying your bills, anti-muslim, anti-black, anti-semitic and anti-hispanic?
That’s not being principled, that’s being a petulant child throwing sh1t at the wall.
Support who and what you want. Post that all you want, but BS has managed to carve out a reputation this thing that looks line, no wait, is Ireland…
Sure, you want Trump to win. That’s fine and people will automatically hammer you for that given how fractious this election is. However, an awful lot of the stuff you’ve posted is generated from the Alt-Right as they’re known, deeply provocative and in some cases plainly fake. Sure, Sean Hannity got caught out recently by one story as did you… but not an apologiy or a redaction – from either of you. Good company!
You’re polarizing an awful lot of those who enjoy this place and me included. I’ve been here since the start and under different names. Maybe you’ll be glad if the door hits my ass on the way out….
Should BS be now considered a hybrid fake news site? Cos the stuff you’re posting is neither fair, nor balanced.
Well said De Kloot.
Bodger just look at who’s supporting you – the absolute dregs of the BS commentariat – human(misery) who dances with glee at dead refugee kids, and Mr. Reality who likes to scream the word bile at clouds and the postman. Re-assess your choices.
*wipes brow*
So Bodger should keep his opinion because it may upset some people?
B0dger: Either poo or get off the pot.
We are checking the exit sign in case you haven’t noticed.
Don’t let the exit door whack you on the way out SOQ; you can crawl back in through the cat flap when you change your petty little mind
I agree with De Kloot.
Yea go Hillary lets all pat each other on the back
@Yep. That’s not what I’m saying fwiw… Bodger can think and believe what he wants… He can even post what he wants seemingly. It’s when lies and fake stories are posted for whatever the narrative being pursued is, that’s when I have a serious issue and leaves me sour.
Akin to free speech, one is free to say what one want but one is not free from the consequences of what is said… The old analogy of a squeezed tube of toothpaste comes to mind – once it’s out there, it’s never going back in…
It would almost be funny, if not so serious….
SOQ
Pot calling kettle, poo or get up yourself, the exit sign is that way for those lacking a proper sense of Huma and the implications of those ‘hidden’ emails *points to New York Times website*
I can sit down right now and type a mail to anyone of you from yourself which looks real. Since when did Wikileaks become the source of all truth, without verification or authentication?
Enough of the games.
And yes, unlike most I am one just one person posting under one username.
Hello SOQ
Do you know what metadata is? Or a DKIM signature?
thread bookmarked for fun reading later…
I’m with Susan Sarandon, but I don’t have a vagina… but you get the picture… and me still no Trump supporter.
Commenters should be free to piss take both of them ! …they are both filthy corrupt individuals with zero integrity.
Let me try this response again as the granular reply is clearly not working properly at a lower level.
Hello Termagant
Yes I know very well what metadata is and if Digital Signatures were as secure as claimed, they would be used worldwide and Parkgate Business Park in Dublin 8 would also still be populated by Baltimore Technologies.
I should know, I used to work there.
Only the very naive and/or technically illiterate would believe that hacked emails supplied by the Russians have been handed over 100% intact and without modification.
The scandals with the Clinton foundation pale in comparison with those relating to the Trump foundation. The fact that you ignore this is baffling. He used foundation money to buy a ginormous portrait of himself FFS!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/21/trump-foundation-charity-settle-legal-disputes-reporting
Yes…. millions changing hands in Haiti, schools, housing not built…. Yes it pales to a painting bought with charity money..
“a woman who fupped up her email account. ”
That you think the only issue at play here is Hillary keeping a private email server serves only to reaffirm Bodger’s assertion that press coverage of the events of this campaign has been completely imbalanced and dishonest.
Why are you still here if it’s sinking and sinking? Oh yeah to winge and moan
Why do people who consider themselves intelligent have such difficulty in grasping the concept of zero sum politics? There is only two candidates and if you are negative to one then by default you are positive to the other. This is fact.
What is so noticeable about those who are so critical about Hillary is there is a complete lack of positive comment about Trump. They hold up Hilary’s history while completely ignoring Trumps. In fact, I would go so far as to guess that most of Hillary’s critics haven’t even bothered reading what Trump has gotten up to in the past.
Trump was a private citizen, his past does not have to be held to the same standard as Clintons you dullard.
They’re both running for president so I’m pretty sure their past is of equal interest. Just because he wasn’t a politician when groping women and refusing to pay contractors doesn’t mean it can’t be mentioned.
*THE* stupidest thing you’ve ever written. That’s some achievement.
Its a level above your bile infested spouts ahjayzis
Hmmm.
Nope, it still makes zero sense babes. And we’re all intellectually poorer for having accidentally read it.
Maybe not you though, now you can add dullard to your list of new words alongside bile ;)
Dual carriageway, pomegranate, derision.
So there.
Mr reality, a very angry cut price Russell brand
Of course that is not a “fact”….
Why?
What if i am negative to both but support Stein or Johnson.
If you are negative to both then you criticise both equally but that is not what is going on here.
Despite the prostrations about media bias, the online campaign (including Broadsheet) is solely focused on Hillary.
Why is that?
“If you are negative to both then you criticise both equally”
That makes no sense. I would suggest the main reason you see the media being so negative about Clinton is the orchestrated attempt by WikiLeaks to drip the info. We have known how horrendously poor a candidate Trump is for a long time
People make themselves part of the narrative by stupidly jumping to the DEFENCE of either candidate and if you really stand behind one because you feel they aren’t as bad as the other…
I think you are missing the point – the reason why the online media focuses on Hilllary is because the mainstream media is so anti-Trump – to a point that raises questions about Hillary and her relationship with the mainstream media. I am not a Trump fan but the bias against him in the msm coupled with a reluctance on the part of the msm to look at Hillary critically is extremely worrying. A lot of spin in this campaign and a worrying amount of it is coming from the Hillary side, too, not reassuring about their bona fides.
+1
Haha Hillarys history, brilliant, what like whitewater, like Vince foster, like mena and the ADA and her own rose law firm, or her dalliance in the stock market before becoming a senator, yea she’s a rich history of criminality if you wanna go there
And what about Trumps history eh? Do you actually know anything about it or is this just some silly juvenile game to you?
To acknowledge one is not to ignore the other.
Ha. You forgot to change names.
SOQ what about Hillarys past (criminal investigations)
I’m just disputing what you are saying. No need for a costume change.
Soq it to him
Anyone who brings up Vince Foster is a silly juvenile.
The hysteria from the likes of Mr Reality is great, but what’s weird is she shouldn’t have had a chance. Republicans should be united in their loathing of her, progressives divided in their meh-ness of her. Instead the Republicans nominate Trump, a walking embarrassment of a human being, an embodiment of the racist misogynist SWAT-happy sex-offender internet troll that no-one with half a brain would let within a million miles of executive power, turning an easy victory for the GOP into a tight race that looks set to end up shaking the GOP to pieces. No wonder you’re spitting blood. You hate her with the heat of a million suns, and she stands a real chance of winning.
“she shouldn’t have had a chance”
Veteran politician, darling of the establishment, schmoozer of Saudis, former Secretary of State, former US senator, former FLOTUS Hillary Rodham Clinton shouldn’t have had a chance? What alternate reality are you living in? If she’d been marginally less awful at her job and marginally more scrupulous in her dealings she would have steamrolled Trump, given that the media has successfully engendered in the public the image of Trump as “a walking embarrassment of a human being, an embodiment of the racist misogynist SWAT-happy sex-offender internet troll that no-one with half a brain would let within a million miles of executive power”. Not to mention that her warchest is 2.5 times the size of Trump’s.
If Hillary had been, not even a good politician, but an adequate & honest person, she would have taken this election without breaking a sweat.
She got this far because she’s a good politician, not because she’s popular or well liked. The distinction isn’t that difficult to grasp. She’s been at the receiving end of a thirty year campaign of hate by the Republican party. She’s a canny operator, but the well’s been poisoned in therms of her honesty – everyone has a sense that she’s crooked but the antics of the Republican witch-hunt means nobody really believes any of the specific charges against her if they don’t already hate her, and the truest ones are the ones they go into hysterics trying to inflate into the very heart of evil, which makes them look ridiculous. Contrariwise, every impression about Trump comes from the man himself. Idiot picked a fight with a baby. Is going on trial for child rape. Who picks a candidate going on trial for child rape? It’s fubar, is what it is.
When you mention rape I assume your talking about Billy boys antics Nigshill
Vince Foster Nigshill that’s all I have to say; breaking a few eggs to make a 30 year omelette
Two very entertaining comments there Nigel
“Is going on trial for child rape.”
No, he isn’t. Again, Bodger is being proven completely correct.
+1 million
Oh, I’m sorry, is there some other way of phrasing it that suits you better? Or are you just pretending it’s not happening?
An anonymous woman, who hasn’t been seen by anyone who isn’t close to the case and who can’t be directly contacted by any press agency, has taken a lawsuit out against Trump a week before the election. A lawsuit which bears striking similarities to a previous civil suit taken against him which was thrown out on the basis that it was clearly false.
Trump is factually not on trial for child rape.
Nigel
“She got this far because she’s a good politician”
Have you been paying ANY attention? Maybe you follow that with some great points but c’mon. Is Trump a great businessman because he didn’t pay tax ?
Yeah, I see your idea of balance is just buying into the other side’s spin. if the media really was Clinton’s lapdog this would be huge. God imagine if it had been Obama? He’d have been buried alive. I’m actually glad it’s not being brought centre stage, because it would be a horror show and a half. Remember when trump said he wasn’t guilty of assaulting those women because most of them were too ugly to assault? That only worse.
You’re infuriating sometimes to read Nigel.
Not for what you’ve said but how… like a scattergun full of Skittles :) You make a point and follow it with some mad crap which makes the whole point an essay of an effort to reply to… >_< :)
and your hysteria accusations of others, coupled with suggesting others have their heads buried in one sided media…. really now :)
pot, kettle there Ted.
She’s at minimum a good politician the way the Healy-Rae’s are – she’s survived constant hammering assault by the GOP. This doesn’t make her right, or even a good person, or even the sort of politician we’d prefer to see in office, but she’s a playa.
“A playa”!! I think you just won the Internet
Where’s the spin? I’m speaking facts, plain facts. The reason the story is not a bigger deal is that the details of the case are too unfounded and ill-defined for even a corrupt and biased mainstream media to weigh in heavy on it. There’s a difference between bending ethics code to favour a candidate and violating them completely by headlining a story with no verifiable data.
This whole campaign just became about a bunch of e-mails nobody has even read yet. But sure, the media is biased because it’s keeping away from something as explosive as a candidate accused of child rape. Maybe it’s a rare instance of the supposed Clinton lapdog media exercising judgment and discretion – but it’s an exception in the current fevered climate, if so.
Yeah just a small bunch of emails where Hillary takes a pop at everyone and shows everyone that she’s an evil so and so; get up the yard you chancer
Lying Shill how do you like these apples fresh off the tree
Woman who accused Trump of raping her at 13 cancels plan to speak publicly
http://jrnl.ie/3060079
All of the cards in her house are collapsing all at once
Plenty of people have read the Podesta emails. There’s a lot of shady stuff in them which is not being covered by the media. That’s where the conflict arises.
The media is biased for lending any credence whatsoever to this attack case. You, an average joe, were perfectly aware of the case and willing to believe that Donald Trump is going to be held up in court on child rape charges, when that is patently false. Do you not see how that shows the mainstream media in a bad light? You shouldn’t have even heard about it. The media aren’t keeping away from it, they’re reporting it as much as they’re legally and ethically allowed to, which is to a limited extent because it’s such a nothing case.
@terma it was thrown out on a technicality at filling a year ago, it’s never been to court. It’s in civil court because of the statute of limitations. And she’s received death threats so you can’t blame her for hiding.
He is also going to court for fraud in December.
Those are the facts.
First of all that was a separate case.
Second of all it wasn’t thrown out on a “filing technicality”. It was thrown out because it was established that the plaintiff had provided a false address and the courts were unable to verify other elements of her identity. The credibility of not just her case but her existence as a human being was in doubt.
Third of all we only have the word of an anonymous women, who has appeared only in one video in which her face was blurred, her voice was synthesized and she wore a wig, that she received death threats of any kind.
THESE are facts. I don’t know what those things you said were.
Filing errors are technicalities. It’s not an admission of guilt or innocence as your original thrown out statement implies. You arddresed nothing else so well done I guess? Maybe have a cookie.
Right
Hillary Clinton once touched me erotically on the bumhole without my consent. I’m not going to tell you my name or show you my face because Hillary will have me commit suicide with two bullets to the back of the head, but it’s definitely real and it definitely happened and Hillary should not be president because she’s a rapist.
Do you believe me Don?
+1 thousand billion zillion
Sigh yourself. Is the case filed in court and to be judged in December? Am i the judge? And if you feel scared for your life, whether due to reality or not, I’m still going to believe you feel scared.
Not to mention the fraud case you seem to have skipped nicely over.
No cookie.
Reality is if she was man Trump would be finished by now. Misogyny is all that’s keeping him going.
‘You make a point and follow it with some mad crap which makes the whole point an essay of an effort to reply to… >_< :)'
In fairness, an edit function would be a blessing.
Hysteria lol ironic shilling from Nigshil
lol harder. The harder you lol the more everyone believes you’re really lolling.
“the likes of Mr Reality”
I’m totally winning the internet
To your other point; I see where the confusion is coming from. When I said “good” I did mean in the sense of being a moral, decent person with principles and a deep love of their fellow man. No one could dispute that Hillary is a highly skilled practitioner of DC realpolitik.
That’s all I really meant. She’s nobody’s idea of a good progressive candidate.
What do you like about each?
Just the positives please.
I’ll take that as an open question.
Nothing. Absoultely nothing when weighed against the negatives. Is that not the point? Why are sides being so ardently taken when we are all grown up enough to take a step back and ask wtf?
Also, people calling out Bodger and threatening to leave. Grow the funk up. Whoever they are you know they are an important to this site. Past, present and future.
How childish to whine about the content when it helps the clicks, promotes debate but doesn’t suit you. Ye get me?
Ok here is another question. Not getting too technical but blind faith is quite obvious.
When Wikileaks say these these are emails, how does anyone know? In what way have they been verified?
It’s just text after all. Anyone can produce text.
Blind faith? I think the approach of blaming the Russians for the leak rather than the contents tells the story.
People who have better or equal betting odds than Jill Stein, Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson:
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Michael Bloomberg
Joe Biden
When you’re less likely to win a race than people who aren’t actually running the race you may as well not be running either
Hillary is probably the worst candidate to have ever stood for election in the US, she SHOULD have been an easy win for the republicans, but instead, either a case of being completely outplayed or just right place right time, Trump maneuvered himself into the nomination, and an otherwise un-electable candidate like Hillary found herself with a great chance of winning. Now, people keep bringing up emails as if that’s all she’s guilty of and that’s the worst she can do, but in truth with Hillary there is a very, very real possibility of conflict with Russia, (and thats before her dealing’s with the Saudis, that’s before she completely drowns the middle east in blood by arming even more “moderates”), to the extent where her apologists on the hard left are already making excuses for war with Russia, the same people who railed against the iraq and afghan wars (wars she voted for btw), she is simply too dangerous too hold the power she is in grasping distance of.
Trump, for all his stupid promises, has zero political capital as he is not a career politician, has little to no support from his own party, and who’s hairbrained schemes will never make it through legislature regardless of who holds the houses (someone made the ridiculous statement that he would arm saudi arabia, with nuclear weapons, I mean, if you want to see a military coup in the united states, try giving nuclear weapons to any sovereign nation ally or enemy). A Trump presidency will most likely be a disaster socially, with record amounts of hurt feelings, extremely ugly discourse and political gridlock, but the threat of nuclear war will be low, he’ll be a terrible president for america, but a far better one for the rest of the world.
Omygod, Trump IS a better option.
That’s a pretty good summary of how I feel about the election, too.
Added: Trump is seriously flawed, but comes across as having some sense of humanity and morality. Hilary is just as seriously – if not more – flawed and I’m not convinced that she has either of the above.
Are you serious? You think he comes across as more moral?
Even though he stiffs contractors, scams students, boasts about tax avoidance, uses his charity to buy 6 foot tall portraits of himself, uses the crassest misogynistic language about women, boasts about committing sexual assaults, calls Mexicans rapists and muslims terrorists?
Even though he has repeatedly publicly endorsed positions (like the Iraq war) only to openly lie about it even though it’s on record?
I honestly cannot understand this view.
You have to notice that everything he says is lies to realise he’s not honest.
And this.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/31/u-s-electoral-system-ranks-high-but-not-highest-in-global-comparisons/
Why is nobody scrutinizing the Vice Presidential candidates for both parties. Regardless of who is the winner, there is a more probable than previous elections possibility that both could serve. If Clinton were to be indicted and with all the extremist behaviour from Trump he will need lots of secret service protection to protect him from any potential crazed assassination attempt.
+1
This is so focused on the two personalities it is absurd. Both of these candidates are old and it is questionable if either of them would last the full term. As a gay man i fear Trump because if he falls Pence takes over and his views on LGBTI are from somewhere in the 1980s.
I wonder what Jane Ruffino thinks? Answer: she’s in Hillary’s corner.
Who?
Clinton: cunning American politics.
Trump: fascism.
I know which I’d vote for, and it’s not the American version of Mussolini.
This thread is a very handy reference to see the current usernames of the new breed of paranoid bodger acolytes
Dodgy Media..
look no further than “Broadsheet.ie”
Anonymous “Bullshitters” hiding behind “a brand”
Not ONE of them will put their name after an article, for fear of being sued.
Awards my Arse….
Cue Kathy Sheridan and Co in the Irish Times.
She didn’t give a fiddlers about Trump’s views on muslims, blacks, Mexicans … but as soon as WHITE WOMEN LIKE KATHY SHERIDAN are involved, let that keyboard Boadicea loose..