|
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. |
United States13779 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I also think this guy
should be fired immediately. I know this comment is from 2010 and that he wasn't her strategist at the time being, but if we're demonizing Trump for hiring incompetent and trigger happy people then she should be held up to that standard as well.
Edit: oh damnit. Looks like I kinda fell for the whole, 'share before you've fully educated yourself' ploy - I can't actually see any indication of him being a Hillary Strategist beyond this being claimed in the tweet. Snopes couldn't either. Keep this in mind. Wikileaks is pushing false information by saying he is a Clinton strategist. Wikileaks has shown, time and time again, that it has a defined agenda and that it is not some kinda beacon of knowledge. They do not just exist to let the masses know the truth or some similar bullshit. They are reckless, irresponsible, and not entirely reliable. See how easy it is for some Clinton attack to seem legitimate, only to turn out a key part of the story is 100% false?
They are also probably not independent. There is no way to do what they do on the scale that they do without some political assistance from nations who want them to put forward a message. I have, for example, heard theories about Russian intelligence finding its way into Wikileaks and while I'm not sure I believe it, circumstantial evidence suggests that it's plausible.
When they release emails and the guilty party doesn't deny their authenticity, though, that's not just them making stuff up.
On August 13 2016 00:14 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> I'd say she's somewhat more corrupt than average, but it's hard to tell reliably.
The basic problem to me is: you can't use: "where there's smoke there's fire" to measure corruption well when someone has been throwing smoke grenades at them. The large number of unjustified accusations make it harder to identify the legitimate ones unless you look really closely; and opens up a lot of room to magnify the effects of minor biases.
And the eternal question of how much looks suspicious when you look really close at something; I don't have a good comparison base of people who've been look at nearly this close. Medicine has the same problem.
If you look at her record - her failures without taking the Republican side of the story, her claimed successes from the point of view of someone who closely scrutinized them, her non-political dealings such as the Clinton foundation and paid speeches - you will find a record that is well over average in terms of genuine grounds for severe criticism.
|
On August 13 2016 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:14 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> I'd say she's somewhat more corrupt than average, but it's hard to tell reliably.
The basic problem to me is: you can't use: "where there's smoke there's fire" to measure corruption well when someone has been throwing smoke grenades at them. The large number of unjustified accusations make it harder to identify the legitimate ones unless you look really closely; and opens up a lot of room to magnify the effects of minor biases.
And the eternal question of how much looks suspicious when you look really close at something; I don't have a good comparison base of people who've been look at nearly this close. Medicine has the same problem. I also think that Clinton is just insanely powerful and well connected. She's got connections just about everywhere because she's been everywhere and done an insane amount of stuff. Whether you see her resume as good or bad, its a full one. She stays busy. Because of that, it is easy to make up shit like the Wikileaks tweet shown above. We know A is true...and we know B is true...and if we assume C...she's corrupt. Well, maybe you don't know C. Or in most cases, we can actually show C to be false.
Pretty much. Well-connected, successful rich people tend to be connected to... other well-connected, successful rich people. It's a tautology b/c it's obvious. This is how business is conducted more or less, you can't cast a huge net and rule by committee - you rely on your network, and when they offer advice or recommendations you trust that they are good ones while considering that they may have a particular agenda.
If a headline ends in a leading question to insinuate something, the answer is probably no.
|
On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and that's the other dismissive Hillary line: "she's no more corrupt than anyone else." Also BS. She gets so many accusations of wrongdoing because there is plenty of wrongdoing to go around. No other politician with her tenure in office has quite as many, simply because they haven't done as much wrong. Sure, the Republicans pursue witch hunts on pet issues that they are less culpable for than the actual fuckups of Hillary. But many accusations against her are genuine, if overblown, and people dismissing those are generally willfully ignorant and are just trying to convince themselves that the candidate who is best for themselves is better than she actually is. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing. And O'Malley probably had a fair few things you could criticize him for but he is a popular Democrat with a much higher approval rating than Hillary these days. She's a shitty candidate. She has a lower approval rating than any other candidate except Trump for a damn good reason.
The amount of accusations, when they come from partisan sources, is completely meaningless.
You can throw out thousands of fake accusations at someone and then go "see how many times they are accused?". Its garbage.
Show me the amount of times they actually found something worth acting on.
The email thing was not good, it was bad and she basically got saved by the 'lots of people did it' defense but what other investigations have actually found proof of someone bad?
|
On August 13 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:On August 13 2016 00:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also think this guy https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656should be fired immediately. I know this comment is from 2010 and that he wasn't her strategist at the time being, but if we're demonizing Trump for hiring incompetent and trigger happy people then she should be held up to that standard as well. Edit: oh damnit. Looks like I kinda fell for the whole, 'share before you've fully educated yourself' ploy - I can't actually see any indication of him being a Hillary Strategist beyond this being claimed in the tweet. Snopes couldn't either. Keep this in mind. Wikileaks is pushing false information by saying he is a Clinton strategist. Wikileaks has shown, time and time again, that it has a defined agenda and that it is not some kinda beacon of knowledge. They do not just exist to let the masses know the truth or some similar bullshit. They are reckless, irresponsible, and not entirely reliable. See how easy it is for some Clinton attack to seem legitimate, only to turn out a key part of the story is 100% false? They are also probably not independent. There is no way to do what they do on the scale that they do without some political assistance from nations who want them to put forward a message. I have, for example, heard theories about Russian intelligence finding its way into Wikileaks and while I'm not sure I believe it, circumstantial evidence suggests that it's plausible. When they release emails and the guilty party doesn't deny their authenticity, though, that's not just them making stuff up. Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:14 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> I'd say she's somewhat more corrupt than average, but it's hard to tell reliably.
The basic problem to me is: you can't use: "where there's smoke there's fire" to measure corruption well when someone has been throwing smoke grenades at them. The large number of unjustified accusations make it harder to identify the legitimate ones unless you look really closely; and opens up a lot of room to magnify the effects of minor biases.
And the eternal question of how much looks suspicious when you look really close at something; I don't have a good comparison base of people who've been look at nearly this close. Medicine has the same problem. If you look at her record - her failures without taking the Republican side of the story, her claimed successes from the point of view of someone who closely scrutinized them, her non-political dealings such as the Clinton foundation and paid speeches - you will find a record that is well over average in terms of genuine grounds for severe criticism.
I have looked at those records; and without the republican side of the story, I don't actually see much for severe criticism. Mostly due to differing views from you on some of those things, and on average baseline results.
grounds for some criticism and some issues, yes; but not severe criticism.
|
On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing.
While I agree that Hillary is more of the same old, and certainly not desirable when you want to change a flawed system- how are the things you mentioned about Sanders anything?
A child out of wedlock? What century is this? Next someone will come up and say they saw him work on the Sabbath. And I'm fairly sure it's not your wrongdoing when it's actually the actions (or rather responsibilities) of somebody else i.e. your wife.
|
United States13779 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:27 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing. While I agree that Hillary is more of the same old, and certainly not desirable when you want to change a flawed system- how are the things you mentioned about Sanders anything? A child out of wedlock? What century is this? Next someone will come up and say they saw him work on the Sabbath. And I'm fairly sure it's not your wrongdoing when it's actually the actions (or rather responsibilities) of somebody else i.e. your wife.
It's not all that bad, but those are the major reasons people said that Sanders would never be able to win against Trump. Kwizach specifically pushed that argument really hard to try to convince GH that Sanders is unelectable.
On August 13 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:On August 13 2016 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:On August 13 2016 00:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also think this guy https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656should be fired immediately. I know this comment is from 2010 and that he wasn't her strategist at the time being, but if we're demonizing Trump for hiring incompetent and trigger happy people then she should be held up to that standard as well. Edit: oh damnit. Looks like I kinda fell for the whole, 'share before you've fully educated yourself' ploy - I can't actually see any indication of him being a Hillary Strategist beyond this being claimed in the tweet. Snopes couldn't either. Keep this in mind. Wikileaks is pushing false information by saying he is a Clinton strategist. Wikileaks has shown, time and time again, that it has a defined agenda and that it is not some kinda beacon of knowledge. They do not just exist to let the masses know the truth or some similar bullshit. They are reckless, irresponsible, and not entirely reliable. See how easy it is for some Clinton attack to seem legitimate, only to turn out a key part of the story is 100% false? They are also probably not independent. There is no way to do what they do on the scale that they do without some political assistance from nations who want them to put forward a message. I have, for example, heard theories about Russian intelligence finding its way into Wikileaks and while I'm not sure I believe it, circumstantial evidence suggests that it's plausible. When they release emails and the guilty party doesn't deny their authenticity, though, that's not just them making stuff up. On August 13 2016 00:14 zlefin wrote:
Legal -> I'd say she's somewhat more corrupt than average, but it's hard to tell reliably.
The basic problem to me is: you can't use: "where there's smoke there's fire" to measure corruption well when someone has been throwing smoke grenades at them. The large number of unjustified accusations make it harder to identify the legitimate ones unless you look really closely; and opens up a lot of room to magnify the effects of minor biases.
And the eternal question of how much looks suspicious when you look really close at something; I don't have a good comparison base of people who've been look at nearly this close. Medicine has the same problem. If you look at her record - her failures without taking the Republican side of the story, her claimed successes from the point of view of someone who closely scrutinized them, her non-political dealings such as the Clinton foundation and paid speeches - you will find a record that is well over average in terms of genuine grounds for severe criticism. I have looked at those records; and without the republican side of the story, I don't actually see much for severe criticism. Mostly due to differing views from you on some of those things, and on average baseline results. grounds for some criticism and some issues, yes; but not severe criticism.
Well obviously it is all relative. I find a lot of her record to be really shitty but that doesn't mean I'd vote for Trump instead. But "not as bad as the Republican Party" is about the most positive thing I can say about her. And I've said quite a bit about my thoughts on the "lesser of two evils" issue.
|
Yeah, mostly it's that we have different interpretations of how actually bad most of those things are and about how they turned out.
I simply don't find most of her record to be that bad, but more of a fairly neutral blandness.
|
On August 13 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:27 nothingmuch wrote:On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing. While I agree that Hillary is more of the same old, and certainly not desirable when you want to change a flawed system- how are the things you mentioned about Sanders anything? A child out of wedlock? What century is this? Next someone will come up and say they saw him work on the Sabbath. And I'm fairly sure it's not your wrongdoing when it's actually the actions (or rather responsibilities) of somebody else i.e. your wife. It's not all that bad, but those are the major reasons people said that Sanders would never be able to win against Trump. Kwizach specifically pushed that argument really hard to try to convince GH that Sanders is unelectable.
Hm, odd. Wasn't he way ahead of Hillary when it came to running against Trump?
|
|
|
On August 13 2016 00:34 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 13 2016 00:27 nothingmuch wrote:On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing. While I agree that Hillary is more of the same old, and certainly not desirable when you want to change a flawed system- how are the things you mentioned about Sanders anything? A child out of wedlock? What century is this? Next someone will come up and say they saw him work on the Sabbath. And I'm fairly sure it's not your wrongdoing when it's actually the actions (or rather responsibilities) of somebody else i.e. your wife. It's not all that bad, but those are the major reasons people said that Sanders would never be able to win against Trump. Kwizach specifically pushed that argument really hard to try to convince GH that Sanders is unelectable. Hm, odd. Wasn't he way ahead of Hillary when it came to running against Trump?
polls had him somewhat ahead; though there were reason to question whether those polls would hold if he actually become the nominee; as there were many potential attack ads against sanders that the republicans weren't using because they were focusing on hillary. i.e. it's easy to look good when noone's attacking you.
|
|
|
Norway28814 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:34 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 13 2016 00:27 nothingmuch wrote:On August 13 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2016 23:37 LegalLord wrote:
You have to be remarkably blind if up until now, you were to think that Hillary is clean and that all of the myriad accusations of corruption and shitty dealings are wrong just because the Republicans pursued a few overblown smear campaigns against her.
I only wish this had come out a year ago when it could have actually influenced people towards a better choice. Instead we get "oh well I suck but Trump so vote for me anyways." I don't think you can find anyone who would come out more clean after the scrutiny and witch hunting that Hillary has been subjected to. And yes they were baseless witch hunts for the most part. Not to say that Hillary is clean. No successful politician in the US is. The entire system is full of corruption and bribery, both legal and illegal. So yes, Hillary is 'corrupt' but so is anyone else who could replace her. Strap Bernie under a microscope for a few decades and you will be amazed with what you can find. Or not find and pretend regardless. Oh and we did get a good look at what Sanders was involved in that was suspicious. Praising a few South American dictators, had a child out of wedlock, has a wife who was the president of a college that went bankrupt and closed, lots of pet pork projects. Most found it to be severely lacking compared to Hillary's record of wrongdoing. While I agree that Hillary is more of the same old, and certainly not desirable when you want to change a flawed system- how are the things you mentioned about Sanders anything? A child out of wedlock? What century is this? Next someone will come up and say they saw him work on the Sabbath. And I'm fairly sure it's not your wrongdoing when it's actually the actions (or rather responsibilities) of somebody else i.e. your wife. It's not all that bad, but those are the major reasons people said that Sanders would never be able to win against Trump. Kwizach specifically pushed that argument really hard to try to convince GH that Sanders is unelectable. Hm, odd. Wasn't he way ahead of Hillary when it came to running against Trump?
Yeah, but people argued that with Hillary, all her dirt was already public, whereas with Sanders people pretty much had no idea of his bad sides, and with a 5 month smear campaign against him he would not have been able to pass scrutiny.
|
Add up Johnson and Trump's numbers in those polls and you get pretty close to Hillary's number. Hmm...
|
Whatever happened to kwizach btw? Did he get banned or something?
|
Johnson is turning out to be a really big deal if people actually end up voting for him. He has potential to be Nader on crack. Guaranteeing Clinton CO, FL and VA is big.
|
The Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, tore into the media on Thursday for what he called its “extremely unfair practice” of reporting the things he says.
“I’ll say something at a rally and I look out and see all these TV cameras taking every word down,” Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “No one in politics has ever been subjected to this kind of treatment.”
“It’s unbelievable and, frankly, very unethical,” he added.
At a rally in Florida, the candidate lashed out at a TV cameraman whom he caught in the act of recording his words for broadcasting purposes.
“Look at him over there, picking up everything I’m saying, folks,” Trump shouted. “Get him out of here.”
In his interview with Fox, Trump hinted that he might drop out of this fall’s televised Presidential debates if the media continues its practice of reporting the things he says.
“I’ve always said that I would be willing to debate if I’m treated fairly,” Trump told Hannity. “But if the media keeps recording everything I say, word for word, and then playing it back so that everyone in the country hears exactly what I said, I would consider that very, very unfair.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-blasts-media-for-reporting-things-he-says
+ Show Spoiler +Yes, it's satire, in case there's any confusion
|
On August 13 2016 00:41 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +The Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, tore into the media on Thursday for what he called its “extremely unfair practice” of reporting the things he says.
“I’ll say something at a rally and I look out and see all these TV cameras taking every word down,” Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “No one in politics has ever been subjected to this kind of treatment.”
“It’s unbelievable and, frankly, very unethical,” he added.
At a rally in Florida, the candidate lashed out at a TV cameraman whom he caught in the act of recording his words for broadcasting purposes.
“Look at him over there, picking up everything I’m saying, folks,” Trump shouted. “Get him out of here.”
In his interview with Fox, Trump hinted that he might drop out of this fall’s televised Presidential debates if the media continues its practice of reporting the things he says.
“I’ve always said that I would be willing to debate if I’m treated fairly,” Trump told Hannity. “But if the media keeps recording everything I say, word for word, and then playing it back so that everyone in the country hears exactly what I said, I would consider that very, very unfair.” http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-blasts-media-for-reporting-things-he-says+ Show Spoiler +Yes, it's satire, in cares there's any confusion
Holy shit I would have believed you that this was legitimately what he said. Dont do this man, this election cycle is already crazy enough.
|
Norway28814 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Whatever happened to kwizach btw? Did he get banned or something?
Not banned. He still visits the forum, but it seems like GoTunk! in a single post managed to destroy his faith in humanity to the degree where he stopped posting. Maybe he got pissed off because people were targeting him for using academic sources to back up his arguments, that's also very conceivable to me.
|
United States13779 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Whatever happened to kwizach btw? Did he get banned or something?
He just kinda stopped posting. Most of us stopped responding to him for reasons that this post explains very well.
|
On August 13 2016 00:43 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 00:41 Dan HH wrote:The Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, tore into the media on Thursday for what he called its “extremely unfair practice” of reporting the things he says.
“I’ll say something at a rally and I look out and see all these TV cameras taking every word down,” Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “No one in politics has ever been subjected to this kind of treatment.”
“It’s unbelievable and, frankly, very unethical,” he added.
At a rally in Florida, the candidate lashed out at a TV cameraman whom he caught in the act of recording his words for broadcasting purposes.
“Look at him over there, picking up everything I’m saying, folks,” Trump shouted. “Get him out of here.”
In his interview with Fox, Trump hinted that he might drop out of this fall’s televised Presidential debates if the media continues its practice of reporting the things he says.
“I’ve always said that I would be willing to debate if I’m treated fairly,” Trump told Hannity. “But if the media keeps recording everything I say, word for word, and then playing it back so that everyone in the country hears exactly what I said, I would consider that very, very unfair.” http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-blasts-media-for-reporting-things-he-says+ Show Spoiler +Yes, it's satire, in cares there's any confusion Holy shit I would have believed you that this was legitimately what he said. Dont do this man, this election cycle is already crazy enough.
Is it actually satire if it's exactly what he's doing though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
