Can Trump wiggle out of this one?

[thebuzzardman]

I don't think it is fully being understood how little the American electorate cares about Hillary's Wikileaks.

Taibbi's point was probably the most poignant about the issue: that we kinda wish these politicians would speak to us plebs with such frankness and insight.

I have plenty of friends who are Romney Republicans who truly appreciated Hillary's pragmatism in the wikileaks.

That's what convinced them to vote for her.

Totally agree with Taibbi's point.

And, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics in the USA today.

[K_ick_God]

Trump Tweeting about SNL lol. This is definitely not real life.

[CJackson]

Trump making drug accusations now?

I guess it's sort of cool first campaign where both candidates are tweaking.

Les Claypool voice "....those damn white collar tweakers..."

Trump's Name is Mud!

[CJackson]

Taibbi's point was probably the most poignant about the issue: that we kinda wish these politicians would speak to us plebs with such frankness and insight.

I have plenty of friends who are Romney Republicans who truly appreciated Hillary's pragmatism in the wikileaks.

That's what convinced them to vote for her.

Totally agree with Taibbi's point.

And, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics in the USA today.

While we can all say we wish for less packaging of political messages and more unpolished, open discussion of how they actually are thinking about policy I think we all know such a significant portion of their voting blocs would turn that against them. While I do think there is a wide open door now for more frankness and that can be a winning approach I can still understand why there is the private conversations and the dumbed down public rhetoric. It is a choice of how to deal with the public. We'd prefer a more open approach, but all the same I can understand where that mindset comes from. America is so virulently anti-intellectual now that the only digestible material for too many people is slogans. Actual thought would turn them off.

[thebuzzardman]

I have plenty of friends who are Romney Republicans who truly appreciated Hillary's pragmatism in the wikileaks.

That's what convinced them to vote for her.

Totally agree with Taibbi's point.

And, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics in the USA today.

While we can all say we wish for less packaging of political messages and more unpolished, open discussion of how they actually are thinking about policy I think we all know such a significant portion of their voting blocs would turn that against them. While I do think there is a wide open door now for more frankness and that can be a winning approach I can still understand why there is the private conversations and the dumbed down public rhetoric. It is a choice of how to deal with the public. We'd prefer a more open approach, but all the same I can understand where that mindset comes from. America is so virulently anti-intellectual now that the only digestible material for too many people is slogans. Actual thought would turn them off.

Pogo:"We have met the enemy and he is us"

[reub]

How much more time does "mainstream" really have? tic toc tic toc



You can vote here:

Read on Twitter

Do you even know what constitutes news?

You are citing a zealots poll as a counterweight to some vague notion of the "mainstream"

Again, how is that helpful or indicative of anything?

You want to combat bias by citing the most biased imaginable poll and claim 95% of the public trusts wikileaks. That's absurd. You'd be lucky if 50% of the public can distinguish between wikileaks and Dairy Queen

The problem is that the so-called news sources don't know (or care) what news is either. They are an integral part of Clinton's propaganda machine. Don't be brainwashed by these people. Think for yourself. Isn't it obvious why all of these unsubstantiated claims against Trump are coming out just before the election? Do you know that reporters have shared debate questions in advance with Hillary? That they've given her veto power over her quotes? Thanks Wikileaks for doing the job of the real news. Trump 2016 MAGA

[Capn'O]

I have plenty of friends who are Romney Republicans who truly appreciated Hillary's pragmatism in the wikileaks.

That's what convinced them to vote for her.

Totally agree with Taibbi's point.

And, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics in the USA today.

While we can all say we wish for less packaging of political messages and more unpolished, open discussion of how they actually are thinking about policy I think we all know such a significant portion of their voting blocs would turn that against them. While I do think there is a wide open door now for more frankness and that can be a winning approach I can still understand why there is the private conversations and the dumbed down public rhetoric. It is a choice of how to deal with the public. We'd prefer a more open approach, but all the same I can understand where that mindset comes from. America is so virulently anti-intellectual now that the only digestible material for too many people is slogans. Actual thought would turn them off.

Maybe - it becomes an exercise in circular reasoning. People like dumb messages so the messages are dumbed down, then people need dumber messages... so on and so forth.

The Democratic primaries and debates were very heavy on the issues (though not necessarily on Hilary's pragmatism) and people heavily tuned into that. The control-alt-delete right and some on the far left may not want to operate on that plane but as GO says, the Romney Republicans (or Party of Bloomberg as I think that has won out) are desperate for it too. The discourse will rise and fall as much as it's allowed to and I think those of us that value a higher level of debate need to push to raise the bar and not allow the excuse that it's what the people want.

[CJackson]

Totally agree with Taibbi's point.

And, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics in the USA today.

While we can all say we wish for less packaging of political messages and more unpolished, open discussion of how they actually are thinking about policy I think we all know such a significant portion of their voting blocs would turn that against them. While I do think there is a wide open door now for more frankness and that can be a winning approach I can still understand why there is the private conversations and the dumbed down public rhetoric. It is a choice of how to deal with the public. We'd prefer a more open approach, but all the same I can understand where that mindset comes from. America is so virulently anti-intellectual now that the only digestible material for too many people is slogans. Actual thought would turn them off.

Maybe - it becomes an exercise in circular reasoning. People like dumb messages so the messages are dumbed down, then people need dumber messages... so on and so forth.

The Democratic primaries and debates were very heavy on the issues (though not necessarily on Hilary's pragmatism) and people heavily tuned into that. The control-alt-delete right and some on the far left may not want to operate on that plane but as GO says, the Romney Republicans (or Party of Bloomberg as I think that has won out) are desperate for it too. The discourse will rise and fall as much as it's allowed to and I think those of us that value a higher level of debate need to push to raise the bar and not allow the excuse that it's what the people want.

Sure, I was in agreement. I'm merely saying I know where the impulse to sloganize comes from and it is not simply politico's wanting to obfuscate, but a calculated choice in reaction to pervasive idiocy. Of course, I would choose for them to be as wonkish as they can be and to chomp down on the nitty gritty. It is a choice they have to make on what kind of candidate they want to be.

[Capn'O]

While we can all say we wish for less packaging of political messages and more unpolished, open discussion of how they actually are thinking about policy I think we all know such a significant portion of their voting blocs would turn that against them. While I do think there is a wide open door now for more frankness and that can be a winning approach I can still understand why there is the private conversations and the dumbed down public rhetoric. It is a choice of how to deal with the public. We'd prefer a more open approach, but all the same I can understand where that mindset comes from. America is so virulently anti-intellectual now that the only digestible material for too many people is slogans. Actual thought would turn them off.

Maybe - it becomes an exercise in circular reasoning. People like dumb messages so the messages are dumbed down, then people need dumber messages... so on and so forth.

The Democratic primaries and debates were very heavy on the issues (though not necessarily on Hilary's pragmatism) and people heavily tuned into that. The control-alt-delete right and some on the far left may not want to operate on that plane but as GO says, the Romney Republicans (or Party of Bloomberg as I think that has won out) are desperate for it too. The discourse will rise and fall as much as it's allowed to and I think those of us that value a higher level of debate need to push to raise the bar and not allow the excuse that it's what the people want.

Sure, I was in agreement. I'm merely saying I know where the impulse to sloganize comes from and it is not simply politico's wanting to obfuscate, but a calculated choice in reaction to pervasive idiocy. Of course, I would choose for them to be as wonkish as they can be and to chomp down on the nitty gritty. It is a choice they have to make on what kind of candidate they want to be.

And, of course, if you do choose to go wonkish... do know what you're talking about

Spoiler:

cough Gary Johnson cough

What's unfortunate is that it's Clinton's strength to be that person. I suppose it'll come back out when she's president.

[CJackson]

Maybe - it becomes an exercise in circular reasoning. People like dumb messages so the messages are dumbed down, then people need dumber messages... so on and so forth.

The Democratic primaries and debates were very heavy on the issues (though not necessarily on Hilary's pragmatism) and people heavily tuned into that. The control-alt-delete right and some on the far left may not want to operate on that plane but as GO says, the Romney Republicans (or Party of Bloomberg as I think that has won out) are desperate for it too. The discourse will rise and fall as much as it's allowed to and I think those of us that value a higher level of debate need to push to raise the bar and not allow the excuse that it's what the people want.

Sure, I was in agreement. I'm merely saying I know where the impulse to sloganize comes from and it is not simply politico's wanting to obfuscate, but a calculated choice in reaction to pervasive idiocy. Of course, I would choose for them to be as wonkish as they can be and to chomp down on the nitty gritty. It is a choice they have to make on what kind of candidate they want to be.

And, of course, if you do choose to go wonkish... do know what you're talking about

Spoiler:

cough Gary Johnson cough

What's unfortunate is that it's Clinton's strength to be that person. I suppose it'll come back out when she's president.

As I posted a couple of days ago, Gary Johnson is an idiot and completely useless. Guy turned out to be a real joke.

Yes, Hillary will wonk out. That is to be expected and is welcome.

[GONYK]

[CJackson]

Trump:

“I am a big fan of Hindu, and I am a big fan of India,” Mr. Trump said, seeming to entangle the faith with the nation. “Big, big fan.”

[thebuzzardman]

How much more time does "mainstream" really have? tic toc tic toc



You can vote here:

Read on Twitter

Do you even know what constitutes news?

You are citing a zealots poll as a counterweight to some vague notion of the "mainstream"

Again, how is that helpful or indicative of anything?

You want to combat bias by citing the most biased imaginable poll and claim 95% of the public trusts wikileaks. That's absurd. You'd be lucky if 50% of the public can distinguish between wikileaks and Dairy Queen

The problem is that the so-called news sources don't know (or care) what news is either. They are an integral part of Clinton's propaganda machine. Don't be brainwashed by these people. Think for yourself. Isn't it obvious why all of these unsubstantiated claims against Trump are coming out just before the election? Do you know that reporters have shared debate questions in advance with Hillary? That they've given her veto power over her quotes? Thanks Wikileaks for doing the job of the real news. Trump 2016 MAGA

I'm not sure if they are specifically part of the "propaganda campaign", but their coverage of working class American's and the class divide it represents is real, and part of what fuels Trump supporters - not everything they believe is pure racism, but more importantly, they aren't the "only" class in America to have racism or ignorance, but that's what the mainstream media tells you.

It's always been ok to bust on poor whites, just right after it's always been ok in this country to sh*t on blacks. Our culture of "individual achievement" makes anything their failure and their failure alone, lets not look at any other causes. And both parties promote this view.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans

Hmm. Foreign liberal newspaper writes article calling out American mainstream media liberal bias\class bias.

[K_ick_God]

He's really embarrassing himself. Step away from the Internet access.

[slacker55]

:lol:

Trump:

“I am a big fan of Hindu, and I am a big fan of India,” Mr. Trump said, seeming to entangle the faith with the nation. “Big, big fan.”

And let's not forget about "the cyber."


Trump:

"As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

...

We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them."

[CJackson]

I'm not sure if they are specifically part of the "propaganda campaign", but their coverage of working class American's and the class divide it represents is real, and part of what fuels Trump supporters - not everything they believe is pure racism, but more importantly, they aren't the "only" class in America to have racism or ignorance, but that's what the mainstream media tells you.

It's always been ok to bust on poor whites, just right after it's always been ok in this country to sh*t on blacks. Our culture of "individual achievement" makes anything their failure and their failure alone, lets not look at any other causes. And both parties promote this view.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans

Hmm. Foreign liberal newspaper writes article calling out American mainstream media liberal bias\class bias.

I don't have the time today to dissect this fully, but a few quick comments.

Yes, American media has traditionally been slanted by the people who run it. Many of them have pahk'd their cahs in Hahvad Yahd. But Bush was Skull & Bones so it cuts both ways in terms of privilege and power.

Regardless, most media outlets gave Trump all the free publicity in the world, not because of equal time egalitarianism, but because it generated eyeballs. Trump was very profitable for the media this election.

And yet regardless of the prior point, the media is also going to snap to attention when their whole livelihood and the rights of the press are threatened. Trump declared war on the press early on, so it is fair play that they report every dirty little nugget he poops out of his mouth. Trump is not just a bully, he is a fascist at direct odds with the principles of freedom of speech so the gloves came off a long time ago and that has more to do with it than blue bloods running CNN.

[CJackson]

:lol:

Trump:

“I am a big fan of Hindu, and I am a big fan of India,” Mr. Trump said, seeming to entangle the faith with the nation. “Big, big fan.”

And let's not forget about "the cyber."


Trump:

"As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

...

We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them."

Well Trump must know cyber considering he is the ultimate cyber bully himself

[slacker55]

:lol:

Trump:

“I am a big fan of Hindu, and I am a big fan of India,” Mr. Trump said, seeming to entangle the faith with the nation. “Big, big fan.”

And let's not forget about "the cyber."


Trump:

"As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

...

We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them."

Well Trump must know cyber considering he is the ultimate cyber bully himself

Yeah. It's bizarre how a presidential candidate can make mistakes like this. W was bad with his "internets." But Trump didn't even know how to spell "choke." He kept calling Marco Rubio a "chock artist" and a "chocker" in one of his Twitter rants.

How can someone that graduated Wharton not know how to spell "choke?"

[CJackson]

And let's not forget about "the cyber."


Trump:

"As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

...

We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them."

Well Trump must know cyber considering he is the ultimate cyber bully himself

Yeah. It's bizarre how a presidential candidate can make mistakes like this. W was bad with his "internets." But Trump didn't even know how to spell "choke." He kept calling Marco Rubio a "chock artist" and a "chocker" in one of his Twitter rants.

How can someone that graduated Wharton not know how to spell "choke?"

It is highly improbably that Trump has read a book cover to cover more than dozen times in his life. He has no attention span. There are people with ADHD who are brilliant. He is stupid. He's a silver spoon brat overdosed on ego. Intelligence is something for his lawyers to handle. If he had any discernment he would surround himself with superior minds and take their counsel, but he won't allow it because he is just a big baby with a gold toilet. The idea that he could intelligently delegate as president is comical.

[DrKnick]

Don't be a chump. Vote for Trump.