People say the election was rigged on the Democratic side. Not really, just heavily biased in favor of Clinton. It doesn't help that you have a corporate news media, where some including Time Warner (CNN's parent company) gave money to Clinton. The way the Associated Press declared Clinton the presumptive nominee before the California primary is just one example of corruption in media and their influence on the way people vote.
Quote from: Icy on June 13, 2016, 07:18:38 PMI could say a few things about the theft that Trump University conducted, but I won't.All that I'm going to say is that if the money the Clinton Foundation received was used to assist and better the lives of people in less fortunate positions and countries, then I'm indifferent as to who donated it (Within reason).
I could say a few things about the theft that Trump University conducted, but I won't.All that I'm going to say is that if the money the Clinton Foundation received was used to assist and better the lives of people in less fortunate positions and countries, then I'm indifferent as to who donated it (Within reason).
Quote from: Dan on June 13, 2016, 09:40:53 PMPeople say the election was rigged on the Democratic side. Not really, just heavily biased in favor of Clinton. It doesn't help that you have a corporate news media, where some including Time Warner (CNN's parent company) gave money to Clinton. The way the Associated Press declared Clinton the presumptive nominee before the California primary is just one example of corruption in media and their influence on the way people vote.Clinton has received the most negative news coverage of any candidate this cycle.
that's the most incorrect thing i've read all month
Quote from: Verbatim on June 14, 2016, 01:17:12 AMthat's the most incorrect thing i've read all monthClearly not.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 14, 2016, 07:09:48 AMQuote from: Verbatim on June 14, 2016, 01:17:12 AMthat's the most incorrect thing i've read all monthClearly not.That seems to only mention online articles. I think what the others were talking about was TV Broadcasting.
For example, Bernie Sanders being labeled a socialist would seem more (negatively) impactful than say a negative article on Clinton's handling of Benghazi. So while Clinton might have received more "negative" press than anyone else,
wouldn't you say the degree to which it's negative should also be considered?
As to your claim that Sanders being labelled a socialist would harm his chances, I highly doubt that, given that a majority of both self-identified Democrats and liberals have a favourable view of socialism.
How would you quantify that?
Corruption out the fucking wazzoo
