Jul 24, 2016 Just a few quotes from the article: Tons of Vox articles supporting Clinton can be found by using the search function implemented in their own site. Don't read too much into it. I'd wait first for a proper live debate before discussing Trump's possibility to win the elections, but it's definitely overlooked. Just talking morally here, I understand why she might fit your interests, but that's not the point of my skepticism.
Jul 24, 2016 You might find this interesting WPG, or maybe you won't. The approval of American chemical weapons sales to Egypt as Mubarak’s associates were stocking Clinton family interests with cash is but one example of a dynamic that prevailed though Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. During the roughly two years of Arab Spring protests that confronted authoritarian governments with popular uprisings, Clinton’s State Department approved $66 million worth of so-called Category 14 exports -- defined as "toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment" -- to nine Middle Eastern governments that either donated to the Clinton Foundation or whose affiliated groups paid Bill Clinton speaking fees. http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ical-arms-sales-middle-east-countries-1949653 The Clinton Foundation is fascinating to dive into. Tons of coincidences, tie ins with criminals, even from an apolitical standpoint the Clintons in general are interesting.
Jul 24, 2016 How do those quotes show an undue bias in Clinton's favor? They read pretty dry to me. Why? Uh, "morally"? What are you talking about? Are you going to sit here and tell me that Hillary being knocked for keeping emails off government servers like every other politician trumps the "moral" benefit of paid family leave? You need to think this through.
Jul 24, 2016 Dry? "Careful, calculated, cautious, brillant, funny, thoughtful, effective!" "A human being who really believes she's dedicated her life to helping others!" "Her husband being one of the greatest campaign orators of all time" (not even just in the USA, but in general) Because Trump's capacity to connect with the American audience with almost no media outlets is impressive and the way he humiliated the rest of the GOP candidates was just ridiculous. This is also an interesting article. It goes beyond that.
Jul 24, 2016 Actually, I am partially wrong. Colin Powell was found to have TWO emails containing classified information sent to him. Clinton has around 2000 classified information emails that we as the public are aware of, with 22 deemed "top secret".
Jul 24, 2016 That can't be conclusively known; also isn't necessarily the most meaningful analogue, since information became so digitized in the decade between them.
Jul 24, 2016 First of all, you can't add the exclamation point to Klein's quote, that's your own addition. You must have a weak argument if you're trying to skew it! But yes, all of these descriptions of Clinton are simply...accurate? Dude, you're really reaching here. The list of adjectives is not Klein describing Clinton--it's him relaying Washington insiders' accounts. And... ...again, you can f--- off trying to manipulate the writer's words like that, but how is that pro-Clinton? I could write the same thing if I were reporting a story on W. or on Reagan or any number of figures I strongly oppose on political grounds. She believes she's helping others. Seeing her react to peoples' impressions of her turns the premise of the story--the gap between public perception and her close observers--and has the subject confront it. That's just good writing. Very, very thin argument. I mean, is there any disputing this? Do we need to pull up the studies about the unprecedented amount of free media Trump has received? He's been shrewd about it, to be sure--but the press, specifically cable news, has been instrumental to his rise. Dude, come on. I'll give you a mulligan on this instead of mocking you: this is some yahoo's widely laughed-at press grab from six months ago. Trump has a shot to win in theory, sure, but show me an electoral map where you have him winning. I asked you to be specific and you didn't even mention an area of policy? This is a very very very poor attempt on your part, on all fronts.
Jul 24, 2016 Trump could win the rustbelt of America. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, all can turn on a dime during this election. Trump speaks to those people, about how all their plant jobs have disappeared due to outsourcing, it's an effective message and it might get him to the white house.
Jul 24, 2016 Your opinion about how accurate these remarks are mean s--- when discussing the bias of a media outlet towards a particular candidate. And the author agrees with that... I'm arguing the addition of that quote and how cheesy it was to decide to implement it when trying to look into her politics. *Spams aggressively confused smileys* The free media are direct effects of his campaign, which is my main point in this conversation. Also, most of it is negative, so it's still impressive. So we are just going to disregard how Norpath's mode has only fallen short on one election? "yahoo's widely laughed-at press grab from 6 months ago" *yawn* Also, 5. That's literally all that I'm implying here.
Jul 24, 2016 Yeah, he might appeal in those rust-belt areas. But I think the most generous take on his chances gives him PA and MI, but not OH or FL, and leaves him topping out around 230.
Jul 24, 2016 I've seen polls where Trump is up in Florida by 2%, barring something major happening on either side, Florida will be a dead heat state, much like Gore and Bush.
Jul 24, 2016 Let's take a step back here. You're arguing that the quotes you excerpted somehow show bias toward Clinton? The descriptions of Clinton are not Klein's own appraisal--although they wouldn't necessarily be wrong if they were--they're his reporting. The fact that he defers to them is A. journalistically sound and B. phrased in such a way to suggest their reports run contrary to his opinion as an outside observer. Of which quote? How's it cheesy? The piece is not about her policies, it's about the gap in perceptions of her. It speaks directly to that. Look, I'm not trying to be a d-ck, but this is literally my profession, and I'm very good at it. English isn't your first language. You are trying very, very hard to fit a square peg in a round hole here. If someone turned in this piece to me as an editor, it would fly no matter who the politician was, provided the reporting was sound. Yes, I literally said exactly this. Uh, no, you said he "had no media." You're being insanely, insanely hypocritical when talking about bias in reporting. The cherry-picking you're doing here would make Stephen Glass blush. Plus you still have not explained to me a single way in which Clinton is "evil."
Jul 24, 2016 The author's own appraisal compliments his reporting, that's what I'm arguing here. Again, nobody is debating if they are wrong or not: You said me calling Vox a Pro-Clinton media outlet was "A massive reach". And all of these is positive. One of the fragments of their interview with Clinton was attached to the quote, so I was assuming it was including that too. You're certainly being a d-ck by constantly presuming your curriculum, doubting my reading skills and directly mocking me with those preposterous comparisons. I'm 16 years old (close to turning 17), live in a third world country and have already a rather impressive grasp of the language (mind you, the Internet is my only source of learning). Your insufferable condescending tone is seriously deteriorating the purpose of the debate and why I even get into this kind of discussions in the first place. I don't care. Nope, I said he had almost no dedicated media outlets, which is true. Ok? With these comments, not going to bother.
Jul 24, 2016 I've told you before that I'm impressed you speak English this well with no formal education. But I'm saying in this situation, that you're going to have to trust me; I deal with this sort of journalistic writing for a living, you're not going to parse the phrases better than I am. I would defer to you on your local politics. I'm not expecting you to defer to me on Clinton-Trump, but on whether Klein's piece exhibits bias in one candidate's favor? I'm telling you flat out: your claims are thoroughly baseless. I'm going to sleep but I'm sure we'll spar about this more later.
