Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Daerio]

As have other newspapers. Some even say "we can't endorse anyone". But again, Utah, and again, they say she's the only one qualified.

Trump, to date, has zero newspaper endorsements. Least, none that I've seen.

The problem with this statement is that nobody should care who the media wants you to vote for. They're already reporting biased drama-driven bullshit and framing narratives that don't exist and redefining what the truth is and who gets to say what the truth is. And they're reporting the winner of our elections before votes have even been cast.

Why do you need them to tell you who to vote for, too? In fact, the more bullshit lies I read from the mass media trying to get Clinton elected, the more biased the moderation and fact checking is, the more I want Trump to win, and I don't think I'm alone in that. And not even because I think he's a good candidate; it's because I think this is literally the only way to force a change on the system.

The fact that establishment Republicans and Democrats, politicians and "journalists" alike are all banding together to get Clinton elected is very telling. It reaffirms the fact that Trump IS the outsider candidate that will bring change that they aren't interested in seeing. If you like the way things have been heading for the last 16+ years, just keep voting establishment; they have no plans of changing strategies. Personally, I don't like the way things have been going; I hate Obamacare even though I favor single payer national health care reform, I don't believe any of the p-hacked economic statistics being released to try to make the administration look better even though it has been a complete and utter failure. I hate government manipulation and complexity added to make Obamacare personal mandate as anything other than an additional tax. I hate all of you idiots that buy that load of bullshit and keep asking for another helping.

But then again, it's easy to be a fan of Obamacare and his nonsense economic and social policies and that of Clinton while you live in Canada and Europe. It's not so easy when you have to reap the "rewards" of these policies.

[May90]

Hillary Clinton - and her supporters - want to destroy the United States of America.

But, sir! We are only doing our job... The mastermind behind all this is Cthulhu!

[Endus]

I don't believe any of the p-hacked economic statistics being released to try to make the administration look better even though it has been a complete and utter failure.

Y'know, refusing to believe facts because they don't support your baseless ideological preferences isn't the kind of thing people usually come right out and admit to.

[Venant]

I've been saying this for months and you are exactly the kind of person you are describing. You disregard any information from Politico or snopes because 'it is liberally biased' but then you expect everyone to accept the Drudge, Fox News and Wikileaks as unbiased pure as the driven snow journalism, mostly because you agree with their political opinion.

Drudge wants to be the platform for the Alt-Wrong, Fox is the Tentacle holding the Bullhorn on the body of the Republican party and Wikileaks wants to see the American government topple.

Why trust sources like Politico and the New York Times that have literally ceded editorial control of the articles they write to the Clinton campaign? (as has been revealed thanks to wikileaks)

I suppose we wouldn't have to rely on wikileaks so much if we actually had investigative journalism being produced by the media in this country. Instead you have the ruling party of this country literally sitting in most of the major editorial boardrooms. When you see this going on, how can people accuse the only sources that are actually investigating corruption of trying to 'destroy the United States'?

[Endus]

Why trust sources like Politico and the New York Times that have literally ceded editorial control of the articles they write to the Clinton campaign? (as has been revealed thanks to wikileaks)

If by "literally" you mean "stuff you literally made up", I guess. Nothing in the wikileaks documents suggest anything like this.

The closest I can find is this; http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/n...-hillary-veto/

Where one journalist gave veto power in one article, as a condition for getting the access needed to conduct the interview in the first place, which is actually pretty standard practice. And this arrangement was disclosed in the story itself. So the "leak" revealed nothing.

[Breccia]

I've been saying this for months and you are exactly the kind of person you are describing. You disregard any information from Politico or snopes because 'it is liberally biased' but then you expect everyone to accept the Drudge, Fox News and Wikileaks as unbiased pure as the driven snow journalism, mostly because you agree with their political opinion.

Why trust sources like Politico and the New York Times that have literally ceded editorial control of the articles they write to the Clinton campaign? (as has been revealed thanks to wikileaks)

Hey, @Venant, you do understand the concept of irony, don't you?

[Cthulhu 2020]

People certain that trump is going to win could make bank this election....

YES! Bet ALL of your money on Trump, please! We want America to be rich again!

By getting money out of the hands of people who think Trump is a good choice.

[Daerio]

Y'know, refusing to believe facts because they don't support your baseless ideological preferences isn't the kind of thing people usually come right out and admit to.

I'm sorry, but simply nobody believes the bullshit propaganda coming out of the Obama administration. We have a media that doesn't press them on issues like health care coverage when they cite enrollment numbers, but that doesn't mean that some talking head up on a podium talking about 90% health insurance enrollment and 5% unemployment actually convinces a single fucking person.

Even the "average American" dumbass isn't swayed by this nonsense when individually questioned about it. If anything they retreat to some anecdotal, "I know a guy who couldn't get medical help before and since the ACA he did!" Well, that's great, but that's not really what the question was, it's just an evasion.

Good faith debating at the very least is being able to admit these statistics being fronted by politicians are intentionally misleading, but since you guys aren't able to do even that much...

[Captain N]

I'm sorry, but simply nobody believes the bullshit propaganda coming out of the Obama administration. We have a media that doesn't press them on issues like health care coverage when they cite enrollment numbers, but that doesn't mean that some talking head up on a podium talking about 90% health insurance enrollment and 5% unemployment actually convinces a single fucking person.

Even the "average American" dumbass isn't swayed by this nonsense when individually questioned about it. If anything they retreat to some anecdotal, "I know a guy who couldn't get medical help before and since the ACA he did!" Well, that's great, but that's not really what the question was, it's just an evasion.

So creating your own fantasies without evidence again?

[Endus]

I'm sorry, but simply nobody believes the bullshit propaganda coming out of the Obama administration.

It's not "propaganda" just because reality doesn't agree with you. It just means you're wrong, and can't accept that. The unemployment figures aren't "propaganda", and they aren't measured any differently than they have been for decades.

[mvaliz]

People certain that trump is going to win could make bank this election....

Im still toying with the idea of putting some money down on Dumps name... I was going to call it "Donald Dump insurance" to give me a big return to help get my ass to another country ASAP.

[Daerio]

It's not "propaganda" just because reality doesn't agree with you. It just means you're wrong, and can't accept that. The unemployment figures aren't "propaganda", and they aren't measured any differently than they have been for decades.

This is an appeal to false authority; the numbers being cooked before the 2008 crash was mostly meaningless as people don't care about those sort of things when the economy is going well.

At no point has any reasonable American considered the "official unemployment numbers" being released by the organization that would be held directly publicly responsible for such figures to be the word of God. You don't ask people to oversee themselves and expect legit results.

[Endus]

This is an appeal to false authority; the numbers being cooked before the 2008 crash was mostly meaningless as people don't care about those sort of things when the economy is going well.

There's no "appeal to authority" there. The methodology by which they produce those numbers is open record. It hasn't been changed or manipulated. Unemployment figures aren't "propaganda" just because you wish unemployment were higher than it actually is.

[Daerio]

There's no "appeal to authority" there. The methodology by which they produce those numbers is open record. It hasn't been changed or manipulated. Unemployment figures aren't "propaganda" just because you wish unemployment were higher than it actually is.

I don't wish unemployment was higher, I wish the administration was honest with the public instead of scared to admit to any sort of mistake or failure. That's been it's problem with every issue from the economy to the war to Benghazi, Snowden and every other scandal that has come up in Obama's administration that also conveniently hasn't been tied to him in any way.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I believe in personal freedom as much as possible beyond government manipulation, that especially applies to economic freedom.

And again, I voted for Sanders in the primary.

[Endus]

I don't wish unemployment was higher, I wish the administration was honest with the public instead of scared to admit to any sort of mistake or failure.

And yet, you have absolutely no basis for claiming that the numbers aren't honest and legitimate. Unemployment has steadily improved over the last several years, since 2010 at least (I'd have to double check the exact month). The current unemployment rate is 5%. That's the reality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's not "propaganda" just because reality doesn't agree with you. It just means you're wrong, and can't accept that. The unemployment figures aren't "propaganda", and they aren't measured any differently than they have been for decades.

I mean if they REALLY insist on using the U6 instead of the U3, how about we show them what the "real" unemployment rate has been for decades.

Unless they really think that both numbers are just being made up by Obama, in which case we can lol @ conspiracy.

[Krigaren]

At no point has any reasonable American considered the "official unemployment numbers" being released by the organization that would be held directly publicly responsible for such figures to be the word of God. You don't ask people to oversee themselves and expect legit results.

I have a BA in Economics. My primary economics professor was extremely conservative, and even he never spouted nonsense like, "the unemployment numbers are fabricated". Seriously dude, just because reality contradicts the fantasy you, Breitbart, and Infowars have built up, doesn't mean that it's actually all a conspiracy to mislead the American public.

So get your "any reasonable American" appeals to authority out of here.

[Captain N]

I mean if they REALLY insist on using the U6 instead of the U3, how about we show them what the "real" unemployment rate has been for decades.

Unless they really think that both numbers are just being made up by Obama, in which case we can lol @ conspiracy.

It's like they think it's our first rodeo here with "Real Unemployment Numbers"

[Endus]

I mean if they REALLY insist on using the U6 instead of the U3, how about we show them what the "real" unemployment rate has been for decades.

Unless they really think that both numbers are just being made up by Obama, in which case we can lol @ conspiracy.

Right. If they want to talk about "real" unemployment, including discouraged workers and the like, by all means, let's use the U6 instead of the U3. It's been tracked alongside the U3 since 1992, and has followed exactly the same trend in recent history, falling right alongside the U3. It's higher than the U3, of course, because it includes everyone in the U3 and adds more categories, so it's always higher, but that doesn't make it more "right". And you can't compare the current U6 to the U3 of the past; you need to compare U6 to, U6, or you're being dishonest.



There's the U3 and U6 since 1994, compared. Since the peak in 2010, both have fallen pretty comparatively; if anything, the gap's been narrowing, because U6 is falling more quickly.

[Kujako]

I mean if they REALLY insist on using the U6 instead of the U3, how about we show them what the "real" unemployment rate has been for decades.

Unless they really think that both numbers are just being made up by Obama, in which case we can lol @ conspiracy.

Because that still shows unemployment falling. So they want to compare old U3 to new U6.