"Mainstream" Media Refuse to cover Wikileaks

Donald Trump is where he is now because he is NOT a politician. He obviously does not say things which are politically correct. If the republican voters wanted a status quo politician, Jeb Bush or at least 12 other options would be on the stage. Hilllary Clinton is the nominee because the democrats made sure that no one ran against her. They allowed Bernie because they thought she would blow away a 70 year old socialist with no problem. Imagine their panic when old Bernie made it difficult to say the least. Imagine if a few really good democratic candidates had been allowed to run in the primaries.

People who want someone who is going to try and improve the job market and secure our borders are going to vote for Trump no matter how much he says the wrong things. The people who want a status quo politician who says the right things are going to vote for Clinton no matter how corrupt she is. Thus the choice: One who SAYS rude, crude, idiotic statements or one who has DONE rude, crude, idiotic actions.

The people will choose.

How soon we forget wrote:

People who want someone who is going to try and improve the job market and secure our borders are going to vote for Trump

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

Let me give you a word of caution here from the UK. There has been a referendum on the country leaving the EU ("Brexit") as you might know by now... That has come to a shock to some, and the media for sure, most of which had been campaining more or less openly to Remain. Opinion polls had stabilized and were giving the Remain an advantage between 3 and 5% to the very end. And yet Leave won...

Why? They just understimated how pi$$ed an entire part of the population (basically rural blue collars) was against the Status Quo, which in this case meant the EU and all those sets of bizarre, asinine rules.These were people that were not significatively present in their polls, if at all. And they swinged the whole thing, in spite of the Media, of the special interests, of the Government leading the Remain campaign (in a split party) and the Opposition (at least nominallly) joining them.

Fast forward across the pond.... this really looks like another battle between the Status Quo and the People fighting against it after all. Or people against the special interests.... Or maybe you could see it also as one between the traditional Media vs Internet....

I'll grab my popcorns and watch some heads explode in few weeks...

The mainstream media is doing all that it can to get Hillary Clinton elected. It is not reporting any of the inflammatory information about the corrupt "quid pro quo" operations when Hillary was Secretary of State. Chelsea Clinton was so disturbed about the money distribution that she called for an investigation into the "Clinton Foundation" and was called a "spoiled brat" for doing so.

Hillary is a liar and is corrupt to the core. She is avoiding the media and has not given an interview in over 300 days. Did anyone know that there is a complete medical center in Chelsea's apartment building? That's why the Secret Service took Hillary to Chelsea's after her collapse at the 9/11 ceremony.

2 words: law suits.

Sue the press. If the WikiLeaks evidence is true, they'll lose big time. Suing them is the only way that they'll stop this mass collusion.

HobsJog wrote:

2 words: law suits.

Sue the press. If the WikiLeaks evidence is true, they'll lose big time. Suing them is the only way that they'll stop this mass collusion.

Can you please explain your cause of action and legal theory?

This is correct. Unfortunately people allow their emotions to be easily controlled and many will vote for the latter.

Wasn't one of the principles of the Enlightenment that people (called "men" back then) could rise above their emotions by pure thought and reason?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

dont buy the bs wrote:

Does anybody here actually believe Hillary is winning by this huge electoral margin? These polls make no sense, I travel the country often for work and just don't see it, neither do many I've talked to

I've been outside, listening to people and I don't hear anyone speaking Chinese. Therefore, no one speaks Chinese.

An insight into a really dumb person's mind.

webby wrote:

My first question is, "Why should we encourage the press to give more attention to a source that has obtained personal information illegally?"

Because is is information very pertinent to all of us that was being withheld by people intent on misleading us. And wikileaks did not obtain it illegally. It was provided to them anonymously by whisteblowers and maybe by some hackers. Something the powers that be regularly do to all of us.

My second question is, "What do you find so damning and underreported in the emails stolen by Putin and Assange."

The emails were not stolen by Assange and almost certainly not by Russia. If they are not so damning, then why are you so desperate to discredit them?

Do you think Donald Trump being a complete buffoon would be overlooked if more people knew that Democratic Party advisors sometimes act like cold politicians?

Huh?

Jeffy, I'm not sure what your question is. There is a lot of incoherent babble inserted into my quote.

But maybe this will help. The stolen emails aren't particularly newsworthy. It is terrible that the party didn't give Sanders a level playing field, but it certainly wasn't illegal. Parties can run themselves unethically if they want to. And we have all known that Sanders was treated badly for a long time now. It was WIDELY covered. Clinton lost a lot of support because of it, but it's worth noting that even Bernie himself sees Clinton as an obvious choice in spite of the her shortcomings. So it is disingenuous to suggest that you dislike her for what she did to Bernie.

The rest of the blockbuster news from the emails hasn't affected Clinton's standing because it's not at all shocking. It's actually incredibly impressive to most of us that there was nothing worse in tens of thousands of stolen private messages from someone who has been in politics for decades.

Can you imagine what we would see if someone hacked Trump? My god, things he says publicly are repulsive to 60% of Americans. He is a lucky man to be in favor with Putin and Assange (who also happens to be an accused rapist on the lam).

4runner wrote:

Of course Hilary is winning.

Let's see:

Mexicans are rapists.

POWs are losers.

Judges are corrupt.

The inner cities are hell holes.

Don't even start talking about women.

Who hasn't he insulted?

Who's actually left to vote for him?

4runner wrote:

What exactly have I done? Did he not say all those things?

The man is a complete idiot if he thinks that these things don't matter.

No, you are a complete idiot because you are lying. Trump never said those things (except maybe the inner city one, I can't remember). So yes you are being just like Hilary and her side of the media.

times too wrote:

How soon we forget wrote:

People who want someone who is going to try and improve the job market and secure our borders are going to vote for Trump

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why is that so funny to you? These are important issues to people and Trump's ideas are backed by fact. You may not like him as a friend but that doesn't mean his policies are bad.