US Presidential Race 2016

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's not bias when one side is running a campaign based on fear and hatred. He's been endorsed by exactly ONE newspaper and that is the KKK's newspaper. He's a horrible, ignorant and dangerous man who has spent his life finger-banging women against their will, cheating on multiple wives, screwing contractors and firing Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman on a reality show. Hillary Clinton has spent her life in public service, worked for women's and children's rights and helps run a foundation that has helped over 400 million people with clean water and AIDS medication.

Is it biased when history books teach that the Nazis were the bad guys and that the Allies won the war and saved the world?

It's absolutely biased when a public service broadcaster fails to evenly contemporaneously report a U.S. presidential election

 

[CitizenTID]

There is nothing immoral that Hillary Clinton has done. It was bad judgement to use a private server for emails but her predecessors did the same thing and there was nothing nefarious about it.

I'm talking about foreign policy and dealings. BIG arms deals to the likes of the Saudis under her watch, who have clearly funded the likes of ISIS and played a big part in destabilising the middle east for their own aims. Of course, Clinton with her level of greed/agendas, has profited hugely through many such dealings (not all related to arms). It appears little she does is for the welfare of US citizens, never mind the rest of the world - I've just seen you post about her charity endeavours: what you mention may seem generous, but at that level she's throwing a very small bone, she doesn't actively pursue any such thing with the level of power her position gives her, she instead does significantly more detriment.

I've repeatedly said I don't care remotely what server she uses for her emails - though I'd find it pretty chucklesome if she was charged over it because of her behaviour.

 

[buckshot]

It's absolutely biased when a public service broadcaster fails to evenly contemporaneously report a U.S. presidential election

It has been estimated that Trump has received in excess of $1 billion of free advertising from our media. Our media has spent 21 months playing up this email controversy when there was never any evidence that laws were broken. They've spent 10 times more covering Benghazi and the emails than they have of explaining that there haven't been any indications that she couldn't have prevented Benghazi and that she didn't break a law. Our media makes money by keeping things close and they've done everything they can to make Trump seem legit.

Meanwhile if somebody sat beside you at a bar and said they could build a 30 ft wall 5,000 miles long (through rivers and private property) and that all Muslims are terrorists while bragging about sexually assaulting women you'd get up and leave.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

It has been estimated that Trump has received in excess of $1 billion of free advertising from our media. Our media has spent 21 months playing up this email controversy when there was never any evidence that laws were broken. They've spent 10 times more covering Benghazi and the emails than they have of explaining that there haven't been any indications that she couldn't have prevented Benghazi and that she didn't break a law. Our media makes money by keeping things close and they've done everything they can to make Trump seem legit.

Meanwhile if somebody sat beside you at a bar and said they could build a 30 ft wall 5,000 miles long (through rivers and private property) and that all Muslims are terrorists while bragging about sexually assaulting women you'd get up and leave.

All true, but what has that got to do with the BBC being biased??

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It has been estimated that Trump has received in excess of $1 billion of free advertising from our media. Our media has spent 21 months playing up this email controversy when there was never any evidence that laws were broken. They've spent 10 times more covering Benghazi and the emails than they have of explaining that there haven't been any indications that she couldn't have prevented Benghazi and that she didn't break a law. Our media makes money by keeping things close and they've done everything they can to make Trump seem legit.

Meanwhile if somebody sat beside you at a bar and said they could build a 30 ft wall 5,000 miles long (through rivers and private property) and that all Muslims are terrorists while bragging about sexually assaulting women you'd get up and leave.

I don't give a fuck about any of that because none of your media takes twelve quid a month out of my bank account.

 

[buckshot]

I'm talking about foreign policy and dealings. BIG arms deals to the likes of the Saudis under her watch, who have clearly funded the likes of ISIS and played a big part in destabilising the middle east for their own aims. Of course, Clinton with her level of greed/agendas, has profited hugely through many such dealings (not all related to arms). It appears little she does is for the welfare of US citizens, never mind the rest of the world - I've just seen you post about her charity endeavours: what you mention may seem generous, but at that level she's throwing a very small bone, she doesn't actively pursue any such thing with the level of power her position gives her, she instead does significantly more detriment.

I've repeatedly said I don't care remotely what server she uses for her emails - though I'd find it pretty chucklesome if she was charged over it because of her behaviour.

Please show me somewhere where she's made profits off of arms deals that isn't a Trump ad. And while you're at it explain how Hillary Clinton was the one who got involved with the Middle East while she was first lady of Arkansas or when she was in the senate under a republican president.

The Clinton Foundation gets exemplary ratings from all of the independent charity watchdog groups BTW.

 

[i kne albert davy]

It has been estimated that Trump has received in excess of $1 billion of free advertising from our media. Our media has spent 21 months playing up this email controversy when there was never any evidence that laws were broken. They've spent 10 times more covering Benghazi and the emails than they have of explaining that there haven't been any indications that she couldn't have prevented Benghazi and that she didn't break a law. Our media makes money by keeping things close and they've done everything they can to make Trump seem legit.

Meanwhile if somebody sat beside you at a bar and said they could build a 30 ft wall 5,000 miles long (through rivers and private property) and that all Muslims are terrorists while bragging about sexually assaulting women you'd get up and leave.

Well if I was a brickie looking for a good contract I'd have to think about it, leaving would be tough 5000 miles u say how high would it be.

 

[west didsblue]

...or she hid evidence of illegalities successfully or not' includes whether there was any to hide. I absolutely understand hard and morally questionable decisions are a regular thing in political matters, it's necessary for the long-game - those who only make completely moral decisions are at a disadvantage because they're not prepared to do as much to achieve their aims.

The difference is Clinton is aggressive in her foreign policy (she instigates things that prompt these decisions), Trump, whilst he may have to clear up the mess in the middle east (and other dilemmas may arise), gives not only the impression he wouldn't be, but the very important impression of willingness to build relations with countries that may otherwise be threats due to previous poor relations. Also with Trump: he isn't the typical politician, he's a corp in politician's suit (I don't like corps like him, but there are also types of corps with political agendas for the world I hate more, ones that fund Clinton); he is challenging the typical politician publicly, for change (that could be very positive). It's my preference to see that potential for change given a chance instead of the norm from the US, which has only thrown up big problems continually on the international stage.

I really can't understand how people can't see right through Trump. His only talent (apart from being a sex pest) is that he is the ultimate salesman. He will say anything at all to get the deal whether it's based on fact or outright lies. During this campaign it's been mostly the latter. He has no grasp at all of politics or current affairs and he's a useless businessman. When his financial affairs become available for scrutiny as they surely will eventually, I'm convinced we'll find his liabilities will be way in excess of his assets. His motivation is greed and revenge and his tactics are to appeal to the prejudices of the uneducated and the proportion of the population who are racist, Islamophobic and/or mysogynist. He's a vile human being. Whatever anyone's reservations are about Clinton, it all appears to be based on innuendo and constantly blaming her personally for perceived poor US government policy over the last 20 years.

 

[CitizenTID]

Please show me somewhere where she's made profits off of arms deals that isn't a Trump ad. And while you're at it explain how Hillary Clinton was the one who got involved with the Middle East while she was first lady of Arkansas or when she was in the senate under a republican president.

The Clinton Foundation gets exemplary ratings from all of the independent charity watchdog groups BTW.

Good for her, doesn't change my point though.

I'll come back to you tomorrow on the other thing.

 

[buckshot]

...or she hid evidence of illegalities successfully or not' includes whether there was any to hide. I absolutely understand hard and morally questionable decisions are a regular thing in political matters, it's necessary for the long-game - those who only make completely moral decisions are at a disadvantage because they're not prepared to do as much to achieve their aims.

The difference is Clinton is aggressive in her foreign policy (she instigates things that prompt these decisions), Trump, whilst he may have to clear up the mess in the middle east (and other dilemmas may arise), gives not only the impression he wouldn't be, but the very important impression of willingness to build relations with countries that may otherwise be threats due to previous poor relations. Also with Trump: he isn't the typical politician, he's a corp in politician's suit (I don't like corps like him, but there are also types of corps with political agendas for the world I hate more, ones that fund Clinton); he is challenging the typical politician publicly, for change (that could be very positive). It's my preference to see that potential for change given a chance instead of the norm from the US, which has only thrown up big problems continually on the international stage.

First of all, your assumption that she's guilty but she hid the evidence is ludicrous, the fucking FBI investigated her for 21 months. If you can't accept that she's innocent when an obviously politically motivated witch hunt carried out by her political enemies couldn't come up with one shred of evidence against her after spending hundreds of millions of dollars for almost two years you must be a paranoid lunatic.

And as far as being too aggressive in foreign policy, her opponent has called for torturing terror suspects and killing their families (both war crimes). He's also said he's in favor of bombing areas with large civilian populations and praised Ghadaffi, Putin, Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein.