• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:53
CEST 11:53
KST 18:53
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202558RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 784 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5635

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5633 5634 5635 5636 5637 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
October 18 2016 16:10 GMT
#112681
On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.

And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.


but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.

Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?


I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.

Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.


So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.


When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".


Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)

But how do we define fair reporting? And what if people disagree on what is fair?
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
October 18 2016 16:14 GMT
#112682
On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.

And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.


but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.

Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?


I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.

Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.


So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.


When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".


Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)


This is an outright 100% pants on fire lie.

People will get whatever media they are willing to pay for. No one wants to pay for the generalized broad spectrum news, they pay for short easy to consume sound bites. Its why media is dying, its why journalism is dying, its why people care more about Buzzfeed than pulitzers.

People like saying they want fair news. But they never put their money where their mouth is because people are shit.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
October 18 2016 16:21 GMT
#112683
On October 19 2016 01:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.

And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.


but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.

Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?


I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.

Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.


So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.


When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".


Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)


This is an outright 100% pants on fire lie.

People will get whatever media they are willing to pay for. No one wants to pay for the generalized broad spectrum news, they pay for short easy to consume sound bites. Its why media is dying, its why journalism is dying, its why people care more about Buzzfeed than pulitzers.

People like saying they want fair news. But they never put their money where their mouth is because people are shit.


Maybe you're right if we are equating "people" to the "majority". I wasn't really thinking like that, though.
Toadesstern
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Germany16350 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-18 16:29:06
October 18 2016 16:28 GMT
#112684
I mean I'm not sure if it's intentionally or not in that they WANT it to be that way but especially when it comes to Trump a lot of the media DOES give him a hard time and most time he absolutely deserves it but sometimes I'm just shaking my head when reading.
I remember one headline from Reuters (US edition) after the 2nd debate that was titled "Trump failed to implode" (iirc) and just found myself asking wtf kind of title that's supposed to be.
<Elem> >toad in charge of judging lewdness <Elem> how bad can it be <Elem> also wew, that is actually p lewd.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
October 18 2016 16:37 GMT
#112685
On October 19 2016 01:21 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 01:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.

And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.


but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.

Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?


I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.

Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.


So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.


When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".


Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)


This is an outright 100% pants on fire lie.

People will get whatever media they are willing to pay for. No one wants to pay for the generalized broad spectrum news, they pay for short easy to consume sound bites. Its why media is dying, its why journalism is dying, its why people care more about Buzzfeed than pulitzers.

People like saying they want fair news. But they never put their money where their mouth is because people are shit.


Maybe you're right if we are equating "people" to the "majority". I wasn't really thinking like that, though.


I don't disagree with that assessment. My main issue is about funding. In order for journalists to do their jobs they can't be homeless. In order for journalists to do their job right they need to be given the time and resources to do the job right. And unless they are given the agency and resources to do that we will only have the media we currently have available to us.

Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
October 18 2016 16:42 GMT
#112686
On October 19 2016 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 01:21 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 01:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:55 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:49 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:36 travis wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2016 00:31 travis wrote:
I know what you guys are talking about with your usage of the word bias. I am saying it's obviously irrelevant, no one cares about slight unintentional bias, they want media that doesn't have a clear agenda. I think media that was clearly *attempting* to be objective or fair would be good enough.

And the point was that you can both privately donate money to Hillary, because Trump is one of the largest opponents of free press to threaten the USA in a long time, and *attempt* to keep that bias out of your journalistic work.


but the bias(agenda) *is* in the journalistic work, from the top down. do you guys really not know this? I thought this was common knowledge at this point. There is literal, intentional agendas being pushed in basically all of the mainstream media. Like, the actual goal is to specifically not be fair and not be objective.

Are you saying all the public media is working toward a common goal or perspective?


I'd say that *almost* all of the big media is pushing some sort of agenda, and the majority of it tends to be unified in whatever agenda they push.

Do i think they are actually working towards a goal? I don't know about things like that. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes or the level of complication or what kinds of grand conspiracies do or do not exist. But some things are obvious just by observing.


So anyways yeah, I think that when most people talk about "unbiased media", they mean media that isn't what we are talking about now.


When people talk about unbiased media they actually mean "whatever media agrees with me".


Okay this is probably more on the money in general :/
not always though. There are a lot of people still I think that just want fair reporting (in particular I think many people want better coverage of a broader spectrum of current events)


This is an outright 100% pants on fire lie.

People will get whatever media they are willing to pay for. No one wants to pay for the generalized broad spectrum news, they pay for short easy to consume sound bites. Its why media is dying, its why journalism is dying, its why people care more about Buzzfeed than pulitzers.

People like saying they want fair news. But they never put their money where their mouth is because people are shit.


Maybe you're right if we are equating "people" to the "majority". I wasn't really thinking like that, though.


I don't disagree with that assessment. My main issue is about funding. In order for journalists to do their jobs they can't be homeless. In order for journalists to do their job right they need to be given the time and resources to do the job right. And unless they are given the agency and resources to do that we will only have the media we currently have available to us.



I agree on the sustainability of journalism, especially of the type you are talking about is a big problem right now, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk like those sources don't still exist. None of the sources we have are ideal, but then that's probably always been true, but we do still have a lot that dig deeply into different areas. Sites like Vice, Mother Jones, and The Intercept that do some actual investigative journalism.

If you stop reading at CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews that's still on you. There's still plenty of other places to go for now.
Logo
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 18 2016 16:43 GMT
#112687
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42653 Posts
October 18 2016 16:46 GMT
#112688
Clinton 307 with 50 in a tossup eh.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Dan HH
Profile Joined July 2012
Romania9118 Posts
October 18 2016 16:48 GMT
#112689
U.S. President Barack Obama urged Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to "stop whining" about the Nov. 8 election being rigged, saying no serious person could suggest U.S. elections could be manipulated because of their decentralized nature.

"I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It's unprecedented," the Democratic president said.

"I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining, and go try to make his case to get votes," Obama said at a joint White House news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-italy-onama-trump-idUSKCN12I256
PhoenixVoid
Profile Blog Joined December 2011
Canada32740 Posts
October 18 2016 16:48 GMT
#112690
The only form of journalism I really see dying is print, but their standards haven't eroded too far. Journalism has shifted more than anything, away from the old vanguards and standards to a media landscape where you'll see alternative, smaller websites do some proper journalism as well.
I'm afraid of demented knife-wielding escaped lunatic libertarian zombie mutants
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
October 18 2016 16:50 GMT
#112691
Not sure what the classification system is (MN lean Dem is lol) but Texas being anything but deep red should be cause for diapers.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
October 18 2016 16:56 GMT
#112692
On October 19 2016 00:25 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them.

See, now this is where you "wax poetic," and good job too.

Show nested quote +
On October 18 2016 23:46 KwarK wrote:
As has been previously pointed out multiple times, the media has actually done Trump favour after favour by trying to draw parallels between shit like the Trump Foundation literally bribing politicians to support Trump's business interests and the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments in exchange for eight different departments other than Clinton's state department signing off on a deal that was above board and not within her power to approve unilaterally and then using that money to battle AIDS.

There really is no equivalency between the two candidates but in an attempt to appeal to both sides and say six of one, half a dozen of the other they have rounded a ten down to a six and a one up to a half dozen.

Not to mention that when the only votes Trump needed were the deplorables in the primary he loved that the press would repeat his latest gaffe over and over, that's how he built his base. It's only now that people outside of his base are being polled and he's realizing that they hate him that he's upset that the press are reporting on what he says and does.

Clearly Trump should've lobbied for favors in eight different companies, then he'd be off the hook. But seriously, the perception of which scandal's worse is the partisan issue. If you like Clinton, you probably think Trump's got more skeletons in his foundation. If you like Trump, you probably think Clinton's up to her neck if political favor trading. The most partisan will claim one is objectively worse (lol). But you are the subjective reader and will highlight one and dismiss the other repeatedly (Just read the thread to see cherry picking and spin applied). Which is why the AP story was so breathtaking; you can get a meeting with the secretary of state or her attention in a phone call having been a major donor to the foundation, and there's a segment of the population that will diminish the ethics violations. Followed by justifying it given the candidate's perspective on the media (absolutely hilarious given Clinton's track record on free speech), and twist back around and say there is no liberal media bias. It is the world we live in today.

Some media outlets work so close with the Clinton campaign they had full-page spreads on Machado ready with videos to go right after the first debate concluded. + Show Spoiler +

. NBC holds onto their Access Hollywood footage until after the primary to help their girl win. From the hacks, we see how campaign operatives can get town hall questions in advance. A presidential debate moderator boasted to the Clinton camp about how well he took down Trump with questions, and to Obama about how bad the opposition party was. And the list goes on and on. Big media outlets excepting Fox are in the tank for Clinton. And if you like reading outlets that are like Breitbart is to Trump, you have it, and congratulations. I wish you all well whistling past the graveyard of American journalism, consciences clean in your own studied ignorance.


A couple of us think they are both favor trading liars and that the media emboldened Trump during the primary and is squarely behind Hillary now. The way her campaign bossed Chuck Todd around explains why he's been so pissy lately.

It's quite clear in the emails (for those who aren't relying on CNN) that the media and the Clinton campaign (and the state department) were all working together during her campaign. It is true that things like planting stories using friendly reporters isn't exclusive to Hillary or Democrats (doesn't make it okay), but things like Begala pushing out Obama's poll #'s regarding being Muslim/Foreign also weren't some premonition, looking into defending him in the general.

It's less so that they did these things, then the bald-face lies they are trying to tell to cover their asses that get me.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42653 Posts
October 18 2016 16:57 GMT
#112693
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
October 18 2016 16:59 GMT
#112694
On October 19 2016 01:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:
The only form of journalism I really see dying is print, but their standards haven't eroded too far. Journalism has shifted more than anything, away from the old vanguards and standards to a media landscape where you'll see alternative, smaller websites do some proper journalism as well.

Mother Jones did that amazing piece on private prisons that caused a lot of discussion.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer

And then they did a follow up editorial on why they felt it was necessary.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-investigative-journalism-editors-note

Which made me rethink my view on non-disclosure agreements within companies like Apple.

But here's the other reason investigations like this one have grown so rare: litigation. When ABC News busted Food Lion for repackaging spoiled meat for sale back in 1992, a jury bought the company's line that the real offense had been the falsification of employment applications and the reporters' failure to fulfill their assigned duties—i.e., repackaging spoiled meat! The $5.5 million damage award was eventually knocked down to just two dollars, but it put a chill on this kind of muckraking for a generation, and during that time, corporate and official entities built an ever-tighter web of legal protections. Nondisclosure agreements—once mainly the provenance of people who work on Apple product launches and Beyoncé videos—are now seeping into jobs of all stripes, where they commingle with various other "non-disparagement" clauses and "employer protection statutes." Somewhere along the way, employers' legitimate interest in protecting hard-won trade secrets has turned into an all-purpose tool for shutting down public scrutiny—even when the organizations involved are more powerful than agencies of government.


There is great reporting for those who are willing to look for it. But if people just watch the latest video on youtube upvoted to the front page of reddit, they will never find it.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Rebs
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Pakistan10726 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-18 17:01:49
October 18 2016 17:01 GMT
#112695
Whether he believes them or not is irrelevant, the problem is that" they lied" about it.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
October 18 2016 17:04 GMT
#112696
On October 19 2016 01:57 KwarK wrote:
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?


Do I think there is clear cases of the appearance of impropriety? Yes. Do I think she (like every person with a massive charity) used it for personal benefit? Absolutely. Do I think that the foundation and it's supporters have drastically overstated it's help in specific incidents? Yup. Do I think this is abnormal enough for anyone to get in trouble? Nope.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42653 Posts
October 18 2016 17:06 GMT
#112697
On October 19 2016 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 01:57 KwarK wrote:
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?


Do I think there is clear cases of the appearance of impropriety? Yes. Do I think she (like every person with a massive charity) used it for personal benefit? Absolutely. Do I think that the foundation and it's supporters have drastically overstated it's help in specific incidents? Yup. Do I think this is abnormal enough for anyone to get in trouble? Nope.

Great. Please give specific examples of the impropriety and of the personal benefit to the Clintons.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
October 18 2016 17:12 GMT
#112698
On October 19 2016 02:06 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 19 2016 01:57 KwarK wrote:
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?


Do I think there is clear cases of the appearance of impropriety? Yes. Do I think she (like every person with a massive charity) used it for personal benefit? Absolutely. Do I think that the foundation and it's supporters have drastically overstated it's help in specific incidents? Yup. Do I think this is abnormal enough for anyone to get in trouble? Nope.

Great. Please give specific examples of the impropriety and of the personal benefit to the Clintons.


Appearance of impropriety would be not disclosing donations

Personal benefit seems kind of obvious, besides bragging about it's work to increase her public profile, traveling for free, and it leading to many well paid speaking opportunities for Bill, they also used it to protect money from taxes so they could spend it as they wished (#3).

I mean that's not it but those are a couple.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 18 2016 17:19 GMT
#112699
The American Health Care Association, an industry group that represents most nursing homes in the U.S., has filed a lawsuit against the federal government over a new rule that protects the right of patients and their families to sue nursing homes in court.

The new rule, which is part of a set of regulatory reforms set to take effect on Nov. 28, bans so-called pre-dispute binding arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts, which require patients and their families to settle any dispute over care outside the court system via arbitration.

As The Two-Way has reported, "The rule applies to facilities that receive money from Medicare or Medicaid — which is nearly all of them."

The lawsuit filed Monday in Mississippi by the American Health Care Association calls the arbitration clause ban "arbitrary and capricious" and contests the authority of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which drafted the rule, to regulate how nursing homes handle disputes. The suit asks a federal court at least to delay the ban from taking effect when the rest of the rules become law in November, while the court considers the industry group's challenge.

The lawsuit also echoes comments made to NPR by an American Health Care Association spokesman in arguing that arbitration is "an equally fair — yet far simpler and less costly — means of seeking redress as compared to the complicated and slow-moving court system."

The American Bar Association noted in 2014 that "arbitration has a number of elements that lend to its reputation for efficiency and expediency, including traditionally faster timelines and therefore lower costs for case resolution." A 2009 study commissioned by the American Health Care Association found the average awards after arbitration in nursing home cases were 35 percent lower than if the plaintiff had gone to court.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
CannonsNCarriers
Profile Joined April 2010
United States638 Posts
October 18 2016 17:23 GMT
#112700
On October 19 2016 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2016 02:06 KwarK wrote:
On October 19 2016 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 19 2016 01:57 KwarK wrote:
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?


Do I think there is clear cases of the appearance of impropriety? Yes. Do I think she (like every person with a massive charity) used it for personal benefit? Absolutely. Do I think that the foundation and it's supporters have drastically overstated it's help in specific incidents? Yup. Do I think this is abnormal enough for anyone to get in trouble? Nope.

Great. Please give specific examples of the impropriety and of the personal benefit to the Clintons.


Appearance of impropriety would be not disclosing donations

Personal benefit seems kind of obvious, besides bragging about it's work to increase her public profile, traveling for free, and it leading to many well paid speaking opportunities for Bill, they also used it to protect money from taxes so they could spend it as they wished (#3).

I mean that's not it but those are a couple.


Do you bother to read the articles? This whole election season is just people taking headlines they like and not bothering with the text.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.
Dun tuch my cheezbrgr
Prev 1 5633 5634 5635 5636 5637 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 7m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech101
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 5358
Shuttle 1516
Larva 516
BeSt 480
actioN 219
ToSsGirL 182
ZerO 113
ggaemo 112
TY 107
JulyZerg 96
[ Show more ]
Dewaltoss 86
EffOrt 68
Backho 63
sorry 61
Sharp 44
Soma 33
Snow 15
ajuk12(nOOB) 13
Dota 2
XaKoH 547
XcaliburYe263
Counter-Strike
allub142
Other Games
summit1g6232
singsing1459
ceh9652
Beastyqt442
Fuzer 198
ZerO(Twitch)5
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 62
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV193
League of Legends
• Stunt752
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
1h 7m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
4h 7m
CranKy Ducklings
1d
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 4h
CSO Cup
1d 6h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 8h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 23h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.