• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




Clinton vs Trump: The Playing Pitch is NOT Level

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
Clinton vs Trump: The Playing Pitch was NOT Level

For a long time, I could not figure out why self-styled "neutral" posters in the Trump vs Clinton campaign concentrated 100% of their posts in apoplectic outrage at Clinton "scandals", while corresponding Trump faux-pas received little or no attention.

It was easy to see the same pattern in the US media - Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State (thereby putting classified material at risk) have been hammered ad nauseam. Yet a corresponding list of Trump scandals are largely unknown to the public. Trump is rarely questioned about them, and if he is, the media quickly move on to a "redemption narrative", giving rise to the public belief that these are minor transgressions.

A case in point: Trump's foundation paid $25,000 to the election expenses of the Florida Attorney-General, who promptly dropped a state case against Trump University. If that was the Clinton Foundation, would Hillary Clinton be still in the race? I doubt it.

Yet, the media have already moved on, as if nothing happened.

OTOH, AP published a story about the Clinton Foundation that was shown to be grossly inflated series of accusations e.g. the State Department was requested to supply diplomatic passports so someone from the Foundation could visit North Korea to help free jailed Americans. They were refused. So wtf? But the story got high media attention, and is supposedly key in Clinton's "trust issues".

The major indictment against Clinton is the use of the server which put classified information at risk, a prosecutable offense. Yet the FBI Director said it was "not a cliff hanger" of a case, and "clearly not prosecutable". There was no criminal intent, but of course "ignorance is not a defence". In this case, the Director thought it was mitigation enough.

Why is the playing pitch tilted in favour of Trump, for whom there are 18 scandals, any one of which make him a dubious candidate for President? The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet - The Atlantic

The scandals are manifold - dishonest business practices, employing undocumented workers, discrimination against blacks in the renting of apartments, bilking investors, 4 bankruptcies, cheating suppliers ... it is a formidable list. That is even before we get to his credulous belief in Birtherism, his personal health and his obvious concealment of his tax situation.

Against that, there are the Clinton "scandals", of which the e-mails is the only substantive one. You would throw in her rocky marriage to Bill Clinton, and his infidelity, but then Trump is not without his own share of sex allegations. So "people in glass houses should not throw stones".

There may be more than one reason for the glaring media bias, but the clearest one is the Clinton is a woman, and is being judged by a higher standard. Trump may hire a campaign manager (Paul Manafort) who worked as a lobbyist for a Putin-puppet President of Ukraine. An elected Trump would have given him a senior role. But he fired him for his failures in his job, not for the security risk.

Trump was therefore considered "redeemed", and the matter got dropped as a story. Consider the differing attitude to Clinton's e-mails. Trump never got asked if he did a simple background check on Manafort, and what did he do if suspect connections came up?

Yet Clinton is the one who is supposed to have "trust issues" and whose judgement is questioned the more. What is it about Trump's history that makes his judgement superior? On the basis of what has happened to his investors or his suppliers, would you buy a used car from him? On the whole, Trump is far worse than Clinton in all aspects, going by the sheer volume of scandal, improper conduct and inappropriate behaviour, both in business and private life.

Yet, the media continually take his word. He is allowed to lie without challenge. And the "neutrals" seem to just follow the media pack. The playing pitch is tilted against the woman candidate. If the payment to the Florida Attorney General had come up in the primaries, when he was opposed by other men, he would have been forced out of the race.

Here, a journalist owns up to the "Clinton media rules", one of them is "Every allegation against Clinton, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false." .

Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary - Vox
 
Last edited:


Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
The real problem of course is that they are both awful candidates and that the people of the USA deserve much better.
 

Just Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,792
Hiliary Clinton is a fúcking cúnt.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,229
They are both garbage.
Trump is radioactive garbage though.
The trouble is the scumbag media want this race to go to the end and will manipulate it so that it happens regardless of whether they accidently give Trump the presidency. In five years their folly will be remembered as a crime.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
Hiliary Clinton is a blah blah look at me I'm angry at that woman blah blah.
:rolleyes:

This election, as is often the case, is about the lesser of two evils.

As it unfolds, the people of the US seem to be saying "better the divil you know."

Uninspiring stuff.

Meanwhile, bigots on both sides spin their narratives, massage facts, underplay their candidate's shortcomings, overplay the failings of the "other" candidate...

No wonder so many people are alienated from politics. It has the same mind-numbing effect as debates between FFers and FGers...
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
They are both garbage.
Trump is radioactive garbage though.
I think this is what it will come down to.. specifically, that Trump would be radioactive domestically in terms of race relations and social cohesion, which, let's face it, rightly or wrongly, is higher among the average voter's list of concerns than foreign policy.
 

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
28,078
As a non US citizen Im supporting Trump for his foreign policies. Particularly, . Syria Cuba Russia North Korea etc Most of the people I know who support Clinton are basing their support on Facebook memes.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
:rolleyes:

This election, as is often the case, is about the lesser of two evils.

As it unfolds, the people of the US seem to be saying "better the divil you know."

Uninspiring stuff.

Meanwhile, bigots on both sides spin their narratives, massage facts, underplay their candidate's shortcomings, overplay the failings of the "other" candidate...

No wonder so many people are alienated from politics. It has the same mind-numbing effect as debates between FFers and FGers...
No point is grousing about it.

It has been clear for a year that Hillary Clinton would get the Democrat nomination, like it or not. Bernie Sanders was not a realistic alternative. Tim Kaine has been a revelation and is surely one for 2024, even if the Dems lose in 2020.

With hindsight, the Republicans could easily have ousted Trump from the race early on. But each considered others as the greater threat, so he survived until he was too late to stop.

One big advantage he has is that he sells advertising, on all sorts of media. He is so good for revenue, the media barons do not want it to stop. And that is a problem for Clinton.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
What tosh.

Clinton has been receiving the featherbed treatment from the MSM for ages.

Every outlet from the NYT, the Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NBC, you name it start out ignoring, then under reporting, then excuse making for her. The sycophancy is nausea inducing.

Check out this photograph taken during the 89 second "press conference" she held recently mid-flight. The only one in months.


Check out the expressions, ranging from adoring to downright worship:


 

mossyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
5,060
As a non US citizen Im supporting Trump for his foreigb policies. Particurly. Syria Cuba Russia North Korea etc Most of yhe people I know who support Clinton are basing their support on Facebook memes.
Its true. Clinton will be a catastrophe for the Middle East. There is no getting away from that.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
As a non US citizen Im supporting Trump for his foreigb policies. Particurly. Syria Cuba Russia North Korea etc Most of yhe people I know who support Clinton are basing their support on Facebook memes.
Trump supported the Iraq war, then said he opposed it and the US should pull out.

Now he says pulling out was wrong because Obama did it, and they should have stolen all the oil they could instead.

If you can make sense of that ... ok, maybe Trump's incoherence suits you because you are just incoherent anyway.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
Its true. Clinton will be a catastrophe for the Middle East...
Why? People keep saying this as if it is in some Bible they read.

Clinton was part of the administration that pulled out of Iraq, and negotiated a nuclear arms deal with Iran. She even initiated the talks herself.

IMHO, Trump is the obvious disaster for the Middle East. He will undo the nuclear arms agreement, and further destabilise the region.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,089
They are both garbage.
Trump is radioactive garbage though.
The trouble is the scumbag media want this race to go to the end and will manipulate it so that it happens regardless of whether they accidently give Trump the presidency. In five years their folly will be remembered as a crime.
I have "liked' your post - except that I do not think that HRC is garbage. She is much better than that, and just because she defeated (fair and square) your favourite Bernie you should not hold a grudge and you should not believe the garbage her opponents have been throwing at her for 25 years. Take her for her policies and accept that she made a mistake about having her own email server (and boy is she paying for that error of judgement). You will see her in a different light.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
I think this is what it will come down to.. specifically, that Trump would be radioactive domestically in terms of race relations and social cohesion, which, let's face it, rightly or wrongly, is higher among the average voter's list of concerns than foreign policy.
I'll buy into that.

Anyone who supports the KKK'S favourite should be questioning if they are on the right side.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
No point is grousing about it.
Come on... this is grousing.ie! :D

One big advantage he has is that he sells advertising, on all sorts of media. He is so good for revenue, the media barons do not want it to stop. And that is a problem for Clinton.
I can see that... the media have not covered themselves in glory.. they are doing that thing that salacious tabloid journalists often do.. they speak out of both sides of their mouth; one the one hand, they say "Isn't he just awful?" and they act all scandalized, while at the same time they keep feeding him the attention he craves.

That said, you can't shut a major candidate out of the news cycle... it's vicious circle.
 

GabhaDubh

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
2,361
For a long time, I could not figure out why self-styled "neutral" posters in the Trump vs Clinton campaign concentrated 100% of their posts in apoplectic outrage at Clinton "scandals", while corresponding Trump faux-pas received little or no attention.

It was easy to see the same pattern in the US media - Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State (thereby putting classified material at risk) have been hammered ad nauseam. Yet a corresponding list of Trump scandals are largely unknown to the public. Trump is rarely questioned about them, and if he is, the media quickly move on to a "redemption narrative", giving rise to the public belief that these are minor transgressions.

A case in point: Trump's foundation paid $25,000 to the election expenses of the Florida Attorney-General, who promptly dropped a state case against Trump University. If that was the Clinton Foundation, would Hillary Clinton be still in the race? I doubt it.

Yet, the media have already moved on, as if nothing happened.

OTOH, AP published a story about the Clinton Foundation that was shown to be grossly inflated series of accusations e.g. the State Department was requested to supply diplomatic passports so someone from the Foundation could visit North Korea to help free jailed Americans. They were refused. So wtf? But the story got high media attention, and is supposedly key in Clinton's "trust issues".

The major indictment against Clinton is the use of the server which put classified information at risk, a prosecutable offense. Yet the FBI Director said it was "not a cliff hanger" of a case, and "clearly not prosecutable". There was no criminal intent, but of course "ignorance is not a defence". In this case, the Director thought it was mitigation enough.

Why is the playing pitch tilted in favour of Trump, for whom there are 18 scandals, any one of which make him a dubious candidate for President? The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet - The Atlantic

The scandals are manifold - dishonest business practices, employing undocumented workers, discrimination against blacks in the renting of apartments, bilking investors, 4 bankruptcies, cheating suppliers ... it is a formidable list. That is even before we get to his credulous belief in Birtherism, his personal health and his obvious concealment of his tax situation.

Against that, there are the Clinton "scandals", of which the e-mails is the only substantive one. You would throw in her rocky marriage to Bill Clinton, and his infidelity, but then Trump is not without his own share of sex allegations. So "people in glass houses should not throw stones".

There may be more than one reason for the glaring media bias, but the clearest one is the Clinton is a woman, and is being judged by a higher standard. Trump may hire a campaign manager (Paul Manafort) who worked as a lobbyist for a Putin-puppet President of Ukraine. An elected Trump would have given him a senior role. But he fired him for his failures in his job, not for the security risk.

Trump was therefore considered "redeemed", and the matter got dropped as a story. Consider the differing attitude to Clinton's e-mails. Trump never got asked if he did a simple background check on Manafort, and what did he do if suspect connections came up?

Yet Clinton is the one who is supposed to have "trust issues" and whose judgement is questioned the more. What is it about Trump's history that makes his judgement superior? On the basis of what has happened to his investors or his suppliers, would you buy a used car from him? On the whole, Trump is far worse than Clinton in all aspects, going by the sheer volume of scandal, improper conduct and inappropriate behaviour, both in business and private life.

Yet, the media continually take his word. He is allowed to lie without challenge. And the "neutrals" seem to just follow the media pack. The playing pitch is tilted against the woman candidate. If the payment to the Florida Attorney General had come up in the primaries, when he was opposed by other men, he would have been forced out of the race.

Here, a journalist owns up to the "Clinton media rules", one of them is "Every allegation against Clinton, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false." .

Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary - Vox
OTJ, when I read the thread title I thought, OTJ has seen the light regarding the pitch not been level. You remind me of Cookiemonster during the General Election posting straight for 38 hours. While I admire your writing skills, it appears that you are a pure conduit for information dissemination. No matter which threads on P.ie are relative to Mrs Clinton you produce multi paragraph statements (notice the use of the word statements). As the American election is wont to go, it is tightening and if I may say, you are sounding slightly more desperate and we still have 2 months to go.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
As I read on Twitter. So true:

"If Nixon had been a Democrat, the Washington Post editorial board would've whined: "But LOTS of people use tape recorders!"


Too true, too true.
 

mossyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
5,060
Why? People keep saying this as if it is in some Bible they read.

Clinton was part of the administration that pulled out of Iraq, and negotiated a nuclear arms deal with Iran. She even initiated the talks herself.

IMHO, Trump is the obvious disaster for the Middle East. He will undo the nuclear arms agreement, and further destabilise the region.
She is fanatically pro-Israel. Already the illegal settlement expansion is progressing at such a rate that many experts now believe that any Palestinian State is unviable. The West Bank has been carved up to suit the settlers and the Palestinians have been pushed back onto a few scraps of poor land. The UN is predicting that Gaza will be uninhabitable by 2020. If Clinton gets in I believe the Palestinian people will be effectively liquidated.

That's before we even get started on Syria.
 

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
28,078
Trump supported the Iraq war, then said he opposed it and the US should pull out.

Now he says pulling out was wrong because Obama did it, and they should have stolen all the oil they could instead.

If you can make sense of that ... ok, maybe Trump's incoherence suits you because you are just incoherent anyway.
I was referring to his current policies, not something he said 13 years ago as a hotelier.
Why start a thread, and then insult people who offer an opinion or input on the discussion?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,694
Clinton has the media on her side and has been 'lined up' for the role of looking after the interests of her donors for years, so the playing field is not at all level.

Usually the American electorate falls for the accompanying spin, but not anymore, judging by the polls.
Well, Clinton is leading in the polls, so your post does not make a lot of sense.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top