OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[TimRobbins]

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

I think that saying "if it's not in the NYTimes then it's not happening" is kind of a cop-out. So yeah, most of the guys on youtube are nuts, but saying you're getting unbiased coverage from the outlets you mentioned would be a lie.

We're getting endless coverage of a childish conversation Trump had about sex, while ZERO coverage of the Podesta emails? That's absurd. Where's the coverage of the Qatar donation? The derogatory language toward minorities by the Clinton campaign? Where's the reporting on the deleted emails?

Most conspiracy theories are obviously BS, in particular those about "rigging the election". Fraud happens in every elections, but there's nothing to suggest more of it is happening in this round. Still, the amount of attention given to the completely meaningless Trump tapes, while ZERO attention to the (potentially meaningful) Podetsa emails is disturbing.

Wouldn't you like to see a piece in the NYTimes about the Podesta emails? Don't you think it's news worthy? Even if there's no wrongdoing, shouldn't this be covered? How often to get such a behind the curtain look into a campaign? To me, it seems a lot more interesting than Trump's sex fantasies. Don't you agree?

When the major media outlets refuse to cover certain issues, you're going to have less reputable agents step in. There's no vacuum. The conspiracy theories exist for a reason.

[TheSuzerain]

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

I think that saying "if it's not in the NYTimes then it's not happening" is kind of a cop-out. So yeah, most of the guys on youtube are nuts, but saying you're getting unbiased coverage from the outlets you mentioned would be a lie.

We're getting endless coverage of a childish conversation Trump had about sex, while ZERO coverage of the Podesta emails? That's absurd. Where's the coverage of the Qatar donation? The derogatory language toward minorities by the Clinton campaign? Where's the reporting on the deleted emails?

Most conspiracy theories are obviously BS, in particular those about "rigging the election". Fraud happens in every elections, but there's nothing to suggest more of it is happening in this round. Still, the amount of attention given to the completely meaningless Trump tapes, while ZERO attention to the (potentially meaningful) Podetsa emails is disturbing.

Wouldn't you like to see a piece in the NYTimes about the Podesta emails? Don't you think it's news worthy? Even if there's no wrongdoing, shouldn't this be covered? How often to get such a behind the curtain look into a campaign? To me, it seems a lot more interesting than Trump's sex fantasies. Don't you agree?

When the major media outlets refuse to cover certain issues, you're going to have less reputable agents step in. There's no vacuum. The conspiracy theories exist for a reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/15/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-clinton-podesta-emails.html

And there are quite a few others.

[TimRobbins]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/15/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-clinton-podesta-emails.html

And there are quite a few others.

Come on. A reprint of an AP excerpt buried on the last page? There's absolutely no analysis and no reporting. A few paragraphs on every subject. This is a joke.

Don't you think the issues raised in this article (and the rest of the emails) warrant a much more in-depth discussion than the Trump sex fantasies? Don't you think that Hillary telling Wall Street to "not be worried" about her public talk is more interesting than Trump saying he would like to f**k somebody? How about the Qatar donation? Isn't that worth a major discussion? Are Trump's sex fantasies really the biggest issue in these elections? Is that what you believe?

EDIT: Just for fair disclosure, I really don't have a big beef in these elections. I'm pretty liberal socially (not extreme, but definitely liberal on issues like abortion and gay rights, etc.). On economics, I'm liberal on many things (I believe we should have global health care and stronger anti-monopoly enforcement), and conservative on others (I think we should have more transparency and control over Fed actions, less regulation, simpler tax system, stop unskilled immigration, etc). As Codlfish said, unfortunately, we'll never have a candidate that fully reflects my views. I think both candidates are pretty horrible, but you simply can't give Hillary a pass just because Trump is on the other side.

[cocktailswith_2short]

James O'Keefe has an established reputation of editing his videos to misrepresent the context and truth. He's not a journalist, he's an extreme conservative with an agenda.

What's more, I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue Democrats did do something like this. But them saying they were in contact with the DNC and Clinton and had their blessing isn't actual evidence that it actually happened. One conspirator describing a conspiracy isn't credible. That is why in a court of law you are required to have independent corroboration to even allow the conspirator's testimony.

That's right keep pushing the narrative. Nothing to see here people move along. It must be devastating to live in a bubble that is a complete fallacy.

[meekrab]

Donald doubled down on Donald tonight and it will have the predictable effect of making his supporters go nuts and everyone else facepalm.

[Bobbalu]

Is it normal for 2.4 million people to have already cast their vote? I feel like I'm watching a Chris Farley movie here...

[DanTown8587]

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

I think that saying "if it's not in the NYTimes then it's not happening" is kind of a cop-out. So yeah, most of the guys on youtube are nuts, but saying you're getting unbiased coverage from the outlets you mentioned would be a lie.

We're getting endless coverage of a childish conversation Trump had about sex, while ZERO coverage of the Podesta emails? That's absurd. Where's the coverage of the Qatar donation? The derogatory language toward minorities by the Clinton campaign? Where's the reporting on the deleted emails?

Most conspiracy theories are obviously BS, in particular those about "rigging the election". Fraud happens in every elections, but there's nothing to suggest more of it is happening in this round. Still, the amount of attention given to the completely meaningless Trump tapes, while ZERO attention to the (potentially meaningful) Podetsa emails is disturbing.

Wouldn't you like to see a piece in the NYTimes about the Podesta emails? Don't you think it's news worthy? Even if there's no wrongdoing, shouldn't this be covered? How often to get such a behind the curtain look into a campaign? To me, it seems a lot more interesting than Trump's sex fantasies. Don't you agree?

When the major media outlets refuse to cover certain issues, you're going to have less reputable agents step in. There's no vacuum. The conspiracy theories exist for a reason.

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.

[DanTown8587]

Again, I haven't watched the videos yet, so I won't speak to their validity, but O'Reilly and Hannity covered the ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos too and those were biased, debunked garbage.

Hannity and O'Reilly taking up your cause isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of truth.

For what it's worth.

Please find the time to view the videos, and let me know what could be faked/biased/misconstrued in the footage.

Not trolling. Genuinely, enlighten me with specifics.

It is not the job of someone else to unearth why something posted by a person who has a history of editing the truth may not be telling the truth.

I would say to you that using James O'Keefe video as a source of ANYTHING is wrong. The man is not a person who is to be trusted, end of story.

[kulaz3000]

When the major media outlets refuse to cover certain issues, you're going to have less reputable agents step in. There's no vacuum. The conspiracy theories exist for a reason.

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.[/quote]

Isn't this the same logic which depicts Snowden as a traitor and people simply going with that notion?

[DanTown8587]

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.

Isn't this the same logic which depicts Snowden as a traitor and people simply going with that notion?

To compare Edward Snowden to Julian Asange working with Russia grossly misses the point. I disagree with what Snowden believed to be right but he was at least acting AS AN AMERICAN in the AMERICAN system where as Assange and the Russian Government are not acting with a "best interest" of America.

The two are simply not analogous beyond "stolen data".

[Flopper]

James O'Keefe has an established reputation of editing his videos to misrepresent the context and truth. He's not a journalist, he's an extreme conservative with an agenda.

What's more, I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue Democrats did do something like this. But them saying they were in contact with the DNC and Clinton and had their blessing isn't actual evidence that it actually happened. One conspirator describing a conspiracy isn't credible. That is why in a court of law you are required to have independent corroboration to even allow the conspirator's testimony.

That's right keep pushing the narrative. Nothing to see here people move along. It must be devastating to live in a bubble that is a complete fallacy.

No doubt the O'Keefe stuff is extremely partisan, but it does appear to expose real issues within the political system. This type of vote/media manipulation happens on both sides. To think otherwise is delusional at best.

[Flopper]

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.

Isn't this the same logic which depicts Snowden as a traitor and people simply going with that notion?

To compare Edward Snowden to Julian Asange working with Russia grossly misses the point. I disagree with what Snowden believed to be right but he was at least acting AS AN AMERICAN in the AMERICAN system where as Assange and the Russian Government are not acting with a "best interest" of America.

The two are simply not analogous beyond "stolen data".

It amazes me that so many fail to see that Assange's singular motive for doing all this is to see the U.S. burn and that a Trump presidency or the legitimization of Trump-like candidates is the best way to accomplish this.

[DanTown8587]

James O'Keefe has an established reputation of editing his videos to misrepresent the context and truth. He's not a journalist, he's an extreme conservative with an agenda.

What's more, I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue Democrats did do something like this. But them saying they were in contact with the DNC and Clinton and had their blessing isn't actual evidence that it actually happened. One conspirator describing a conspiracy isn't credible. That is why in a court of law you are required to have independent corroboration to even allow the conspirator's testimony.

That's right keep pushing the narrative. Nothing to see here people move along. It must be devastating to live in a bubble that is a complete fallacy.

No doubt the O'Keefe stuff is extremely partisan, but it does appear to expose real issues within the political system. This type of vote/media manipulation happens on both sides. To think otherwise is delusional at best.

**** partisan, the man is a **** liar who grossly edits videos.

His videos are essentially conspiracy theories that do not even have misrepresented facts; they are simply not factual on any level. To sit here and give his videos any legitimate discussion is objectively wrong.

[TeK]

That's right keep pushing the narrative. Nothing to see here people move along. It must be devastating to live in a bubble that is a complete fallacy.

No doubt the O'Keefe stuff is extremely partisan, but it does appear to expose real issues within the political system. This type of vote/media manipulation happens on both sides. To think otherwise is delusional at best.

**** partisan, the man is a **** liar who grossly edits videos.

His videos are essentially conspiracy theories that do not even have misrepresented facts; they are simply not factual on any level. To sit here and give his videos any legitimate discussion is objectively wrong.

I get what you are saying, but in this particular instance, I cannot fathom a scenario that could be edited out. What they say is just too damning. I even posted pics that the people who were on the ground. causing these issues were on the Hillary payroll. Unless these new O'keefe videos are CGI, there is no way they could have been skewed because they are literally videos of the individuals admitting to highly illegal and beyond unethical tactics. These are people of power who have resign/been fired since.

O'keefe's history aside, these two videos are not some insane conspiracy theory.

Once again you cant edit "You know what happened in Chicago and AZ? That was us" - Said by a person CONFIRMED to be on Hillary's payroll from her website.

[Red8911]

No doubt the O'Keefe stuff is extremely partisan, but it does appear to expose real issues within the political system. This type of vote/media manipulation happens on both sides. To think otherwise is delusional at best.

**** partisan, the man is a **** liar who grossly edits videos.

His videos are essentially conspiracy theories that do not even have misrepresented facts; they are simply not factual on any level. To sit here and give his videos any legitimate discussion is objectively wrong.

I get what you are saying, but in this particular instance, I cannot fathom a scenario that could be edited out. What they say is just too damning. I even posted pics that the people who were on the ground. causing these issues were on the Hillary payroll. Unless these new O'keefe videos are CGI, there is no way they could have been skewed because they are literally videos of the individuals admitting to highly illegal and beyond unethical tactics. These are people of power who have resign/been fired since.

O'keefe's history aside, these two videos are not some insane conspiracy theory.

Once again you cant edit "You know what happened in Chicago and AZ? That was us" - Said by a person CONFIRMED to be on Hillary's payroll from her website.

Now this wasnt even mentioned anywhere by the media. If it was trump(without any proof)it would be on the breaking news,so they can bash him like they always do about anything.

[GetBuLLish]

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.

I can't even count the number of reasons why this is so wrong.

[Ctownbulls]

Election is over. Fair and square.

[DanTown8587]

There is an ethical dilemma in covering information that was illegally stolen and then "dumped" on the internet to be consumed as news at the behest of a political adversary of the United States.

I can't even count the number of reasons why this is so wrong.

Real solid there.

There is an ethical dilemma to covering news and releasing private information when said information was stolen by someone to disrupt the political process. This isn't anywhere close to what Snowden did.

Now I'm not saying no one should report it nor am I not saying that it's not news but when the information is stolen by an outside third party, it makes the issue of reporting on it drastically harder. By reporting on it, you're essentially condoning third party, outside agents interfering with political elections.

[coldfish]

It amazes me that so many fail to see that Assange's singular motive for doing all this is to see the U.S. burn and that a Trump presidency or the legitimization of Trump-like candidates is the best way to accomplish this.

I obviously don't support Russia, I agree with you on Assange's motives and I find using stolen data to analyze politics to be distasteful.

With that said, the fact that Hillary is in bed with wall street is a MUCH bigger issue. Its unfortunate that we have to find out about the **** things our officials do through illegal means but that's the reality we live in.

Hillary is going to be the next president but I sure hope that the press keeps her feet to the fire on this. People need to forget about the Russian connection. If Hillary was clean, the Russians wouldn't have been able to steal anything damaging because it wouldn't have existed.

[Red Larrivee]

Election is over. Fair and square.

Game, bad hombres.