US Presidential Candidates

I followed both links.
The one that The E posted is www.snopes.com which I hope that
we all know about.

The other link, constitution.com, seems to be discredited.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Btw, did you follow Douglas's link and read that article? If ANYONE besides a Clinton had been tied to that litany of coincidence, the press would have researched enough to prove either innocence or guilt. They have turned a blind eye. And you think her coverage is bad given all the corruption she has been involved in? Its a whitewash.

I did. Then I read this one. As with all right-wing conspiracy theories (Obama is a muslim! The UN wants to take our guns away!), I can not take the Clinton Assassination Theory entirely seriously.

Who is complaining. Simply stating facts. Trump is getting lots of crappy coverage because he generates the reasons for that coverage. Hillary is doing the same. They both deserve the coverage they get.

Again, we have sheity candidates. Hillary is by far sheitier. All the coverage is doing is highlighting the sheitiness no matter how the press tries to deflect from Hillary. Too bad for Hillary that the truth sucks for her.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Dude. They cover him in the least flattering way possible. Had the electorate as a whole been more open establishment voters, that coverage would have sunk him. As it is the press coverage convinced many that he wasn't part of the political establishment and made whatever he was selling seem better that the alternatives.

Bernie would have beat Trump with the coverage he is getting now. Hillary is just too unlikeable and truly is worse in all the ways Trump is bad to the eyes of many Dems and most non-Dems.

The press is the sole reason Trump is the nominee. He ran his entire campaign based on free advertising from them. They put him on screen at every opportunity because he's a spectacle and a ratings draw.

The not flattering part? That's something nobody can help (at least nobody whose job is reporting rather than spectacularly manipulating the news) and is all on Trump. But apparently that really doesn't matter to the GOP base anyway.

So complaining about the press's treatment of Trump is kind of hilarious. The only people who should be doing that are people who wish the process had integrity instead of being turned into a reality television contest.

PeterZ wrote:Who is complaining. Simply stating facts. Trump is getting lots of crappy coverage because he generates the reasons for that coverage. Hillary is doing the same. They both deserve the coverage they get.

Again, we have sheity candidates. Hillary is by far sheitier. All the coverage is doing is highlighting the sheitiness no matter how the press tries to deflect from Hillary. Too bad for Hillary that the truth sucks for her.

As much as I can't stand Hillary, you're riding towards another moment just like last election when all the right wing 'news' sources kept saying Romney was going to win and ignore the polls right up until he got creamed election night if you think the coverage of the candidates is going to play worse for Clinton to the general electorate as opposed to the GOP base.


Not looking forward to a Clinton presidency, but barring some spectacular disruption to the course of events that's what we're getting. Trump is a circus clown pandering to the worst jingoistic xenophobic impulses of the right wing base... that might play within the GOP primary electorate but it's never going to win over enough of the independents to swing the election.

Frankly, the only reason it's even going to be as close as it is... and that's not going to be very close (again, barring an act-of-God type event)... is because the Dems are nominating Clinton. Anyone else the blowout would be worse.

Don't really disagree. I do have less faith in Hillary than you do, but odds are against her imperial corruptness blowing it....again. She'll try but I doubt she will succeed.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Who is complaining. Simply stating facts. Trump is getting lots of crappy coverage because he generates the reasons for that coverage. Hillary is doing the same. They both deserve the coverage they get.

Again, we have sheity candidates. Hillary is by far sheitier. All the coverage is doing is highlighting the sheitiness no matter how the press tries to deflect from Hillary. Too bad for Hillary that the truth sucks for her.

As much as I can't stand Hillary, you're riding towards another moment just like last election when all the right wing 'news' sources kept saying Romney was going to win and ignore the polls right up until he got creamed election night if you think the coverage of the candidates is going to play worse for Clinton to the general electorate as opposed to the GOP base.


Not looking forward to a Clinton presidency, but barring some spectacular disruption to the course of events that's what we're getting. Trump is a circus clown pandering to the worst jingoistic xenophobic impulses of the right wing base... that might play within the GOP primary electorate but it's never going to win over enough of the independents to swing the election.

Frankly, the only reason it's even going to be as close as it is... and that's not going to be very close (again, barring an act-of-God type event)... is because the Dems are nominating Clinton. Anyone else the blowout would be worse.

From a distance neither seems to be a prize, but Clinton will only be a negative for the US, while Trump will be a negative for both the US and the world.
As to the comment about voting expectations, a perception that they are representing the silent majority and the polls are wrong seems to be a uniquely right wing fantasy here, and I imagine there.

Daryl wrote:From a distance neither seems to be a prize, but Clinton will only be a negative for the US, while Trump will be a negative for both the US and the world.
As to the comment about voting expectations, a perception that they are representing the silent majority and the polls are wrong seems to be a uniquely right wing fantasy here, and I imagine there.

Nah, the left does it here too when they're losing in the polls.

Sorry. Catering to foreign preference by supporting that bag of offal is too much to as of anyone. Yes, Annachie I do refer to your political pin up gal.

Daryl wrote:From a distance neither seems to be a prize, but Clinton will only be a negative for the US, while Trump will be a negative for both the US and the world.
As to the comment about voting expectations, a perception that they are representing the silent majority and the polls are wrong seems to be a uniquely right wing fantasy here, and I imagine there.

PeterZ wrote:Sorry. Catering to foreign preference by supporting that bag of offal is too much to as of anyone. Yes, Annachie I do refer to your political pin up gal.

Daryl wrote:From a distance neither seems to be a prize, but Clinton will only be a negative for the US, while Trump will be a negative for both the US and the world.
As to the comment about voting expectations, a perception that they are representing the silent majority and the polls are wrong seems to be a uniquely right wing fantasy here, and I imagine there.

Ironically, Peter, of the two main candidates it is Trump who has solicited and received foreign campaign contributions.

You state that Clinton is the worse candidate, yet seem to ignore the divisiveness, fear and hatred that Trump is fostering within American society. These things will have a far more lasting, and destructive, impact on America than any alleged small-time corruption on Hillary's part. He has all of her vices and none of her virtues, is as corrupt in his own way, and is far more inclined to use his public position to benefit his private interests.

What Peter, Elizabeth Warren?




WTF is up with the RNC convention's speaches?

Admitedly I'm only getting parts of them over here, but damn they're sounding sloppy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Her too!

Yeah the delivery is pretty poor. The delegates show a remarkable lack of enthusiasm.

Annachie wrote:What Peter, Elizabeth Warren?




WTF is up with the RNC convention's speaches?

Admitedly I'm only getting parts of them over here, but damn they're sounding sloppy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk