Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f−−−ing firing squad’

[Kujako]

Based on what, exactly? Who knows, really! Asked this question before and got no answer.

Each one listed their criteria... but I'm sure all the independent review panels are just part of the vast Clinton conspiracy.

[Daerio]

Each one listed their criteria... but I'm sure all the independent review panels are just part of the vast Clinton conspiracy.

Feel free to offer your opinion on the matter without any evidence or argument; it surely holds more sway that way.

[Rothg]

top kek
/10

Dude.. Lol.

Yes, youtube is a site that reaches incredibly large masses of people. And it is a "media" in a sense, but it is not in any way the mainstream media.

[Felya]

Honestly, I think this is a good thing. I hope Trump takes away as much access to his administration that he can from the mass media.

That way the media actually has to work to report the truth again. Rather than what they get handed by the government. Yes, this means that media's jobs just got harder, but it's probably for the best.

Are you litteraly arguing for less transparency from government? Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to offer your opinion on the matter without any evidence or argument; it surely holds more sway that way.

Here you go:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/ab...ancial-reports
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

[Daerio]

Here you go:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/ab...ancial-reports
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

So this doesn't address what I was talking about, but we're getting closer at least.

I mean, it doesn't seem that complicated, I can google "Red Cross", supposedly one of the worst rated charities among the big ones, (because of their high overhead) and I can find charitable work that they're engaged in without being protested for stealing money. Yet I can't for the Clinton Foundation; I get only emptiness and statements directly from the Clinton organizations. ^_^

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-emails-229605
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ws-issues.html

The Democratic party has been thoroughly dismantled this election cycle due to its absolutely moronic decision to front one of the most corrupt politicians in history. Going through the 3rd DNC chair in one cycle, people tied directly to the Clinton's getting shit-canned after getting caught on video, investigation by the FBI and the rats running for the ratholes and immunity... I hope they manage to get their shit together and clean house, but I doubt it.

[Felya]

So this doesn't address what I was talking about, but we're getting closer at least.

I mean, it doesn't seem that complicated, I can google "Red Cross", supposedly one of the worst rated charities among the big ones, (because of their high overhead) and I can find charitable work that they're engaged in without being protested for stealing money. Yet I can't for the Clinton Foundation; I get only emptiness and statements directly from the Clinton organizations. ^_^

Uhm... the pages I linked list all of their spending. Are you looking for sensationalist articles boasting about their work and not actual numbers? Sure, if that's somehow better:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work

Maybe when Red Cross runs against Trump, you'll have your google searches filled with conspiracy theories as well. Still doesn't stop you from going to the site... that's just willful ignorance...

[Daerio]

Uhm... the pages I linked list all of their spending. Are you looking for sensationalist articles boasting about their work and not actual numbers? Sure, if that's somehow better:

How about just sticking to the allegations being made, and away from rabbit hole expense reports.

[GennGreymane]

Dude.. Lol.

Yes, youtube is a site that reaches incredibly large masses of people. And it is a "media" in a sense, but it is not in any way the mainstream media.

billions of views

[Felya]

How about just sticking to the allegations being made, and away from rabbit hole expense reports.

Can you be a tad bit more specific to what you want now? I'm not flying you to their charity location, if that's the evidance you want now.

[Daerio]

Can you be a tad bit more specific to what you want now? I'm not flying you to their charity location, if that's the evidance you want now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-emails-229605
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ws-issues.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU

I'll compile a bigger list you can ignore, but that's what I already posted that you ignored +1.

If you can offer some sort of defense that speaks directly to the Clintons benefiting personally from their charitable organization ties like that, I would absolutely love to read it; I've been looking for this kind of thing for quite a long time now.

[LaserSharkDFB]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-emails-229605
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ws-issues.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU

I'll compile a bigger list you can ignore, but that's what I already posted that you ignored +1.

If you can offer some sort of defense that speaks directly to the Clintons benefiting personally from their charitable organization ties like that, I would absolutely love to read it; I've been looking for this kind of thing for quite a long time now.

Just to be clear, the only evidence you have is from Wikileaks, yes?

[anyaka21]

For like the third time in this thread, nobody's trying to rewrite the rules after the fact. These sports analogies are retarded because the points - the EC - only determined who would be President, and I'm not disputing that. Debate over whether or not the EC should be changed is in another thread. My point is that (A) the claim that a popular campaign would have gone Trump's way is ludicrous on the face of it, and (B) far more people voted for Clinton than for Trump, and pretending that Trump has some kind of mandate just because he scored a technical win based on rules laid down two hundred years ago is just moronic.

Why don't you actually try reading my posts instead of making me explain myself again?

Because you've made the same point, but the bottom line is that there is ZERO way to know without an actual election taking place, and candidate running said pop vote election. All you are doing is pure speculation with ZERO and factual basis other than the results of an electoral college election which is centered around 4 states. Things could radically change if said pop vote happened and candidates used different tactics and strategies. We just don't know because we can't.

- - - Updated - - -

Just to be clear, the only evidence you have is from Wikileaks, yes?

Do you realize that if by source you mean Wikileaks. Do you then realize that Wikileaks isn't actually a source. They only publish validated emails from where they got them. Or in other words, word for word emails from Podesta, et al... Thus it's pretty good evidence because it's not someone's take or opinion, it's the words from the people that wrote the emails, unadulterated, without bias.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Because you've made the same point, but the bottom line is that there is ZERO way to know without an actual election taking place, and candidate running said pop vote election. All you are doing is pure speculation with ZERO and factual basis other than the results of an electoral college election which is centered around 4 states. Things could radically change if said pop vote happened and candidates used different tactics and strategies. We just don't know because we can't.

All right, Skippy, let me break this down for you:

1) For this question to mean anything, we have to assume that both candidates ran on roughly the same platforms as they did during this past election. If we allow our hypothetical campaigns to radically change their message, it becomes a rather stupid alternate-reality situation, like 'what if Hitler won the Civil War'. They would not, in effect, be the same candidates.

2) The only thing they can change, therefore, is their tactics. What geographic areas they would focus on, how they would organize their GOTV efforts, what issues would get more emphasis, etc.

3) The biggest change of these would be the geographic focus. The EC system forces candidates to direct their efforts to some areas where population is less dense, but a popular election means that they would have to campaign where they would get more bang for their buck: big cities and dense urban centers.

4) These densely populated areas - as I have already provided evidence for - have been extremely blue over the past thirty years.

5) The other guy made the argument that Republicans in urban centers don't vote under the EC system because they feel their votes don't matter, and this would make up the difference. This ignores that (A) Democrats in urban centers often don't vote for the same reason, that 'we'll win this state anyway, so why bother', and (B) taking the focus away from rural areas means losing votes from places that trend red. These two facts together would more than make up the balance from any newly encouraged urban Republicans.

6) Clinton already has Trump beat by over two and a quarter million votes. If Trump had some magical way to increase his support by two million people, he would have done it, even in an EC election.

Therefore: your claim that a popular vote would have turned out better for Trump, meaning that he would have actually beat Clinton's final tally, is technically possible but is akin to asking 'what if unicorns are real?' There is absolutely, ahem, ZERO reason to believe it, and you have ZERO facts to back it up. Sit. The fuck. Down.

Do you realize that if by source you mean Wikileaks. Do you then realize that Wikileaks isn't actually a source. They only publish validated emails from where they got them. Or in other words, word for word emails from Podesta, et al... Thus it's pretty good evidence because it's not someone's take or opinion, it's the words from the people that wrote the emails, unadulterated, without bias.

Just wanted to make sure that we know we're talking about documents collected by an organization with Russian ties, run by a man with a massive hate-boner for Clinton.

[Mormolyce]

Both candidates ran campaigns specifically to turn out voters in swing states. A campaign to try to get a majority of the popular vote would have been completely different including different advertising strategies, potentially different running mates, different focuses on states. You would have a reason for Republicans to actually vote in California, etc. There are many differences and it would be nearly impossible to account for all of these confounders.

Completely speculative. You'd have to not only estimate the actual effect of each candidate's campaigning on people's actual inclination to vote, but also how each one would split their time in the new landscape AND how effective each would be.

Given that this election had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years, the majority of people who turned up were probably significantly invested in their partisan interests and unlikely to be swayed either way.

[Nihilist74]

Sounds like a typical fascist. Put's down any media source that would say the truth about him.

[Captain N]

Sounds like a typical fascist. Put's down any media source that would say the truth about him.

Don't worry we'll soon have Breitbart as the American RT.

It will only say good things about the back-pedaling, lying, corporate ass kissing circus peanut over the next four years.

[anyaka21]

All right, Skippy, let me break this down for you:

1) For this question to mean anything, we have to assume that both candidates ran on roughly the same platforms as they did during this past election. If we allow our hypothetical campaigns to radically change their message, it becomes a rather stupid alternate-reality situation, like 'what if Hitler won the Civil War'. They would not, in effect, be the same candidates.

2) The only thing they can change, therefore, is their tactics. What geographic areas they would focus on, how they would organize their GOTV efforts, what issues would get more emphasis, etc.

3) The biggest change of these would be the geographic focus. The EC system forces candidates to direct their efforts to some areas where population is less dense, but a popular election means that they would have to campaign where they would get more bang for their buck: big cities and dense urban centers.

4) These densely populated areas - as I have already provided evidence for - have been extremely blue over the past thirty years.

5) The other guy made the argument that Republicans in urban centers don't vote under the EC system because they feel their votes don't matter, and this would make up the difference. This ignores that (A) Democrats in urban centers often don't vote for the same reason, that 'we'll win this state anyway, so why bother', and (B) taking the focus away from rural areas means losing votes from places that trend red. These two facts together would more than make up the balance from any newly encouraged urban Republicans.

6) Clinton already has Trump beat by over two and a quarter million votes. If Trump had some magical way to increase his support by two million people, he would have done it, even in an EC election.

Therefore: your claim that a popular vote would have turned out better for Trump, meaning that he would have actually beat Clinton's final tally, is technically possible but is akin to asking 'what if unicorns are real?' There is absolutely, ahem, ZERO reason to believe it, and you have ZERO facts to back it up. Sit. The fuck. Down.



Just wanted to make sure that we know we're talking about documents collected by an organization with Russian ties, run by a man with a massive hate-boner for Clinton.

Wow, breaking out the "skippy...."

let's go with, I think, someone that agrees with you:

Completely speculative. You'd have to not only estimate the actual effect of each candidate's campaigning on people's actual inclination to vote, but also how each one would split their time in the new landscape AND how effective each would be.

Given that this election had the lowest voter turnout in 20 years, the majority of people who turned up were probably significantly invested in their partisan interests and unlikely to be swayed either way.

Essentially, this is what I'm saying. It's pure speculation, either way. We can't know because the race was not run that way. How hard they would have campaigned in each state, etc....

And as he said, lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Thus things could massively change. And maybe they wouldn't. Bottom line, we don't know. Thus using your speculation to try and dismiss my point is...well...pointless.


In terms of Russian hackers? I guess you bought the Clinton Kool-aid. This whole thing was a pure Clinton deflection. She tried to blame it on the Russians, though there was never been a shred of proof for that. Further, and lets continue to bury this even deeper. This still doesn't and hasn't dismissed that the emails are fully validated and real. In fact, Clinton has never denied that the emails are real. Thus, she's essentially admitted to being corrupt, running an extremely corrupt campaign, using her foundation as a pay to play source, taking money from countries that support terrorism, etc...

But that's apparently someone you want to have running this country... Pretty much means your standards for candidates are pretty low.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Essentially, this is what I'm saying. It's pure speculation, either way. We can't know because the race was not run that way. How hard they would have campaigned in each state, etc....

And as he said, lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Thus things could massively change. And maybe they wouldn't. Bottom line, we don't know. Thus using your speculation to try and dismiss my point is...well...pointless.

Except my supposition is backed up by facts and your supposition is backed up by wishful thinking. You're right, we can't know for sure, but in essence we're arguing about a coin flip; I'm saying it's going to come up either heads or tails, and you're saying that there's an equal chance that it could land on its edge. We may not know for sure, but we can make reasonable deductions based on past trends and current evidence, and you are doing neither.

[Luxxor]

Still waiting for an explanation why requesting donations to charity counts as corruption, the server was never hacked and you're just making that up, and setting aside how unreliable Wikileaks is... sure, that's concerning. Compared to an alt-right nationalist having the President's ear, a literal world-ending situation, and an outright lie on Trump's part? Fucking small change, man. I'd tell you to get real, but you obviously don't even know what reality looks like anymore.

You lost, America didnt buy your liberal bullshit. Enjoy the next 8 years fuckwad

infracted - minor flaming

[anyaka21]

Except my supposition is backed up by facts and your supposition is backed up by wishful thinking. You're right, we can't know for sure.

So you have facts.... but mine is wishful thinking.... but then you say I'm right and we can't know for sure....

I guess we're done here...