US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5635

On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:


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)

On October 19 2016 01:07 travis wrote:


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)

On October 19 2016 01:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:


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.

On October 19 2016 01:21 travis wrote:


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

On October 19 2016 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:


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.

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.

On October 19 2016 00:25 Danglars wrote:

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


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.

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.

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.

On October 19 2016 01:57 KwarK wrote:
GH out of curiousity do you believe the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories?

On October 19 2016 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


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.

On October 19 2016 02:06 KwarK wrote:

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

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.

On October 19 2016 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


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.

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.