NBC Delayed Story About Trump's Access Hollywood Recording Over Fear That He Might Sue

from the chilling-effects dept

So just this past Thursday, we wrote about Trump’s habit of threatening to sue the press over any coverage he considers negative. In the past, we’ve also covered his stated plans to open up libel laws. The comments on that post got pretty ridiculous after people who can’t possibly be regular Techdirt readers complained that I was clearly just stirring up shit because I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter. This despite the fact that pretty much everything we’ve ever written about her has been critical too — including her own ridiculous comments mocking free speech and praising censorship. It also ignores that just a few days earlier I had also sided with the Trump campaign when it received a bogus, censorious, cease & desist letter from the city of Phoenix. We’re staying pretty consistent here: we don’t support censorship, no matter whose team you’re on. But, sure, I know. It’s crunch time and people are really concerned about supporting their team, rather than actually discussing issues.

But this is an important issue. Threatening a free press with bogus defamation lawsuits and SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) claims are a really big problem. Case in point: on Friday, as I’m sure you’re already aware, the Washington Post published a video of Donald Trump happily discussing sexually assaulting women, and how it’s okay because he’s a celebrity. As you also know, this became the story of Friday and the weekend, as it appeared to push a bunch of people who had previously supported Trump over the edge to pull their support (why this story rather than earlier ones, I don’t fully understand, but…).

Either way, the story led to a few different varieties of followup stories about how the Washington Post got the story. And all of them note that Access Hollywood found the tape itself last Monday, and realized it was newsworthy. They then took it to their corporate parent, NBC, and some work was done on getting the story out — but it kept getting pushed back. This led many to ask why it could possibly take so long for NBC to report on this. They knew the tape was authentic, so they didn’t need to confirm that.

On Saturday, though, we finally got an answer: NBC held up the story because it was afraid of getting sued.

Although NBC and ?Access? both recognized the newsworthiness of the tape and intended to air it, it first had to undergo a review by the company?s lawyers, the executive said. The executive was unaware of any specific legal issue raised by airing an 11-year-old recording of a presidential candidate who was apparently aware at the time that he was being recorded by a TV program.

However, the network was concerned that Trump could take legal action; the Republican nominee threatened to sue NBC last year after the network?s entertainment division dropped plans to air the Miss USA beauty pageant in the wake of Trump?s inflammatory remarks about Mexican immigrants. Trump backed off those threats when NBC sold its share of the pageant?s rights to him in September 2015.

That, right there, is a perfect example of chilling effects in action. Trump has threatened many, many in the press with bogus defamation claims, and sometimes has followed through. He’s also happily admitted that he’s filed bogus defamation lawsuits just to be a nuisance and cost reporters and publications he doesn’t like money. Here’s Trump on an earlier lawsuit that was clearly bogus from the start and thrown out as such:

“I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

This is why it’s so important to call out threats against a free press and free expression. Bogus lawsuits that scare even giant corporate conglomerates away from reporting on something that is clearly news, is a serious problem. I don’t care which candidate you support or which candidate you hate. You should stand up against abusive litigation designed to stifle a free press. And you should support the effort in Congress to pass a federal anti-SLAPP law that would make it much more difficult for abusive defamation lawsuits to make reporters’ lives miserable.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: nbc

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NBC Delayed Story About Trump's Access Hollywood Recording Over Fear That He Might Sue”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
218 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

This all sounds familiar...

The Washington Post deserves what it gets. They crossed the line when it comes to respectable journalism. It says a lot when other media organizations wouldn’t run with those videos that The Washington Post had posted online.

I have absolutely no sympathy for GawThe Washington Postker and this should serve as a reminder to scandalous media organizations: take a stand for responsible, moral and ethical journalism or face the consequences.

RIP Gawker, may we never see your face again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This all sounds familiar...

So you are in favor of state run media organizations that only tell approved stories? No free press? No truth without prior approval?

What about your precious Reddit and 4chan (assuming you came from there)? You know those would fall far easier than any of the big press papers to someone like Trump.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...

Sam Clemens never dreamed that the ink would be bought by the government, which is to say political operatives working for the government (full time while, part time supporting one ideology or another) who would then do many inconsiderate and possibly illegal things if the ink didn’t get used right.

Sure, shady things happened in Twains time, but some of them were more covert than now, and some of them were overt. Over time the ideologies with the money change.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This all sounds familiar...

But PAC money is private money being spent on political campaigns.

I agree that’s not something Twain could have foreseen happening on this scale. But it’s not the same thing as “the government buying ink” at all; it’s private industry buying ink to influence the government, not the other way around.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This all sounds familiar...

So media companies withholding or adjusting stories because they might lose access to government bigwigs isn’t really a thing? I am fairly certain there are other ways government influence is swayed over media companies, but that one comes direct to mind.

Private industry may withhold advertising from a media company for the purpose of influence, but there are often companies with the opposing ideology who will take up the slack.

When government pushes its weight around, it is from the ideology currently in office, so the timing of any inappropriate influence needs to be considered.

Oh, and the PAC money is money allowed by the government, under the ruse that money is speech. I have a hard time thinking that if you have more money than I then you have the right to more speech than I. I don’t think you do, but PAC’s do think that way.

Anonymous Coward says:

This isn't the end of the story

There are more tapes. Multiple people who were there says that what’s on them is worse. The person who has them is threatening to sue anyone who leaks them, which confirms that.

I hope someone DOES leak them. We, the American people, have a right to see and hear what’s on them. Anyone who stands in the way of that is an enemy of the people.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

I don’t think he could successfully sue the press if they released the tapes, but if somebody on his staff gave them to the press, he might be able to successfully sue that person.

But it’s a moot point, because, as I noted above, he’s explicitly said that if the tapes “somehow” get out, he’s not going to sue over it.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This isn't the end of the story

When a guy puts out a press release saying that he’s not going to release video because it would violate his contract, but doesn’t deny that the video exists, says he wouldn’t retaliate against anyone else who just happened to release it, and also mentions offhandedly that he’s a Democrat, what does that tell you?

It’s got nothing to do with whether or not suing is an option. Burnett won’t sue anybody who leaks the video because he wants the video to be leaked.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This isn't the end of the story

I have not problem with those tapes being released. I just wish that the media would release the Hillary Clinton tapes as well as cover the Wikileaks documents on her. There are a boat load of documents on Wikileaks now that the lamestream media are ignoring. I am all for reporting if they would report on both sides. There are documents where Hillary refers to Muslims in a most derogatory way but I bet you won’t see that on the 6 o’clock news.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

But that’s exactly what they did.

They got the facts out there. The people are deciding.

The Wikileaks story has been covered. It’s being covered. It’s true that it’s getting less coverage than Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women. But maybe there’s a reason for that that’s not “the news media are in the tank for Hillary.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

I like what the USA Today did… they stated that they are unwilling to endorse Hillary Clinton. They also stated that they recommend everyone avoid voting for Trump, and vote for ANYONE else for President, and to vote appropriately for other representatives.

Think of it like this: you are presented with 5 buttons, red orange, yellow, green, blue.

Pressing the red button will kill you.
Pressing the blue button is likely to cause harmful side effects, drain your bank account, but keep you fed and healthy.
Pressing the other buttons will cause unknown effects, but likely won’t do much.

The media is telling people not to press the red button. Red button supporters are saying that the media isn’t bringing enough attention to the fact that the blue button has harmful side effects, and may eventually kill you.

But the media did cover that; they’re just wanting everyone to be very clear that the red button will kill you, so people don’t make a very grave mistake.

Ignoring the media in this situation doesn’t seem like the wise thing to do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This isn't the end of the story

“Pressing the red button will kill you.”

Yes, but that isn’t the way the nation’s founders designed the Constitutional system. They designed the system with multiple firebreaks and substantial redundancy.

Over the years, various Presidents have dismantled the redundancy (equivalent to removing ECC from all computer storage), so that the President can now order the end of civilization on the planet — all by herself.

A disaster drill is long overdue to make sure that all that redundancy and those backup plans still work.

Trump is the perfect disaster drill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

“I bet you won’t see that on the 6 o’clock news.”

Why would they post something that is not independently verified? Or would you prefer the media post every facebook rumour that is out there as soon as they read it?
Some of the wikileaks stuff has been rumoured to been fake. So good chances are they are taking it seriously and doing good journalistic practice by seeing multiple independent sources.

Also why does “both sides” matter? Specifically why does news on one candidate demand the media look or news on the other? If one candidate has 100 negative things about them but another only has 25, is the media then not allowed to discuss 75 of the negative things about the first candidate?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

If one candidate has 100 negative things about them but another only has 25, is the media then not allowed to discuss 75 of the negative things about the first candidate?

That would be awesome except that isn’t what is happening. Hillary has a million negative things against her that aren’t being covered. Just look at the debates, the moderators hounded Trump and left Hillary alone. It is like that every single debate. If they actually covered both we would have the 4th estate back. As it is, they have become mouthpieces for the political parties.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This isn't the end of the story

I really feel bad for the sheeple. If you only get your news from the left, you will get the same story no matter the source. Heaven forbid you actually watch Fox or even better, seek out blogs and videos on your own. In the first debate, the moderator re-queried Trump 41 times and Hillary 7. It is on the video, count for yourself if you don’t trust others.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This isn't the end of the story

Nope, not going to do the work for you, you wouldn’t trust me if I did. The full debate can be found and you can count for yourself. You can also watch tons and tons of videos on YouTube that show the Dems in a less than favorable light. And I am not talking about talk show type videos, I am talking actual news footage and interviews of them. So F- for being lazy and unwilling to even to a few basic searches on YouTube to satisfy your curiosity. But please, go back to sleep if you like.

Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Re:7 This isn't the end of the story

Ok, read some info on Hillary being appointed public defender of a then accused rapist. She put the victim through a ringer, which any lawyer should. She didn’t pick her client, the court appointed her in 1975, but she did what was allowed at the time.

“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.” http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 This isn't the end of the story

Nope, not going to do the work for you

Nice try. You’re the one making the claim; you’re the one who needs to back it up.

Somebody quoted something the other day to the effect of “That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” I believe they referred to it as Hitchens’s Law. I have my disagreements with the late Mr. Hitchens, but in this case he’s right.

Put up or shut up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 This isn't the end of the story

Once again, with feeling, you can easily search on YouTube for all kinds of stuff on Hillary. These are actual videos of her in interviews and press events. Her words. You can also look at Wikileaks for the latest documents where she was plotting against Bernie. She actually rigged the Democratic primary which should have you livid. She referred to Muslims as sand….., you fill in the blanks. So the evidence is right in front of you, you just won’t accept it.

sorrykb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 This isn't the end of the story

The DNC referred Hillary over Bernie. No shit. But the primaries weren’t “rigged” and there was no election fraud.

As for the rest..
Provide evidence for your extraordinary claims. Certainly if it’s as easy as you say you can find it very quickly and come back here with a link. Or you could just keep blathering on and proving only that you’re a self-deluded preening idiot with an exaggerated sense of your own erudition. Your choice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

With the entire debate being publicly available, what additional “news” is there to gather?

If it’s such a rudimentary issue that you feel isn’t being covered by the left (e.g. the ability to fucking count), then it should be equally simple for you to point out.

But no, you just say “do your own work” – when in fact, you want us to do YOUR work.

It’s YOUR assertion.
Back it up, or just fuck off.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

In the first debate, the moderator re-queried Trump 41 times and Hillary 7. It is on the video, count for yourself if you don’t trust others.

Actually I consider that observation comparatively believable without double-checking. From reading other interviews, I’m not surprised the moderator tried 6 times as often in order to manage getting some intelligible response out of Trump than of Clinton. And I suspect he still was less successful overall.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This isn't the end of the story

I wish “conservatives” and “right-wing nutbuckets” didn’t mean the same thing.

I’m one of the sensible conservatives. We do exist, you know, but end up being either shouted down by the nutbuckets or lumped in with “the left.”

What left? There’s no real left in America.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 This isn't the end of the story

I read a pretty fantastic piece by Matt Taibbi, probably after the 2008 election, to the effect that seeing the Republican Party tear itself apart is not a good thing, and that we need real conservatives — because government restraint, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility are positive values, and because checks and balances are important to the health of the government.

But of course the back half of Taibbi’s argument was that what the current Republican Party is really for is the Republican Party, and it’s more interested in scoring political points than making the government work. If Obama’s for something, the Republicans are against it, even if it’s something they used to be for — see the Merrick Garland nomination, for example.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

In the first debate, the moderator re-queried Trump 41 times and Hillary 7.

Is that because of bias or because Trump will just blurt out anything that comes to mind and Hillary actually thinks before speaking?

Personally I didn’t have the stomach to watch the debates and think both candidates are unqualified for the Presidency.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

the moderator re-queried Trump 41 times and Hillary 7

So? Trump evaded the questions EVERY SINGLE TIME and Hillary only evaded them around 9 times. The fact that when she didn’t evade she answered in the least direct way possible while also slinging mud is beside the point — it just gave her less airtime to say anything actually positive and forward looking, with the rest of the airtime spent with the moderator trying to get Trump to say something new that actually made sense in context of the question at hand.

It’s impossible to be fair and balanced in a debate when:

a) only two of the parties were allowed to attend
b) both candidates don’t want to answer the questions
c) one candidate speaks with lies while the other speaks with innuendo.

I honestly can’t figure out why anyone would agree to moderate such a debate.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This isn't the end of the story

I’ve read some of the comment section on the NBC article. The retorts go something like “Hillary is the spawn of the devil and you would not want her to be at the helm”, “Hillary blackmailed the victims of her serial rapist husband”, “crooked Hillary is a thousand times worse”, “Trump is the symbol of breaking up with the political establishment and I am going to vote for this symbol regardless of what the lying press will come up with” and so on.

You don’t really think you can take any of this seriously so far detached from sanity this seems. But history has enough examples of sane and reasonable not garnering majority votes.

sorrykb (profile) says:

Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

I just wish that the media would release the Hillary Clinton tapes as well as cover the Wikileaks documents on her. There are a boat load of documents on Wikileaks now that the lamestream media are ignoring. I am all for reporting if they would report on both sides. There are documents where Hillary refers to Muslims in a most derogatory way but I bet you won’t see that on the 6 o’clock news.

Then you show us these documents. Go ahead. No one here is stopping you,

If the “lamestream media” got their hands on documents like that they would be falling over themselves racing to report it, because it would be big news. BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE NEWS EXLUSIVE INTERVIEW BLAH BLAH BLAH. Those driven by ratings would dive at it. Those driven by journalism would also want to expose it.

So…. You say there are documents. Prove it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story

Please learn to use Google. Especially on YouTube where you will see actual videos of the candidates on the left saying and doing things that never get reported.

For example, the left tried to claim they would have never gone into Iraq the second time. A quick search of YouTube will show countless videos of Hillary, Gore, Kerry, etc all backing the invasion of Iraq. But come election time, they lie about it and the liberal media let them off the hook.

Please, learn to learn for yourself and quit relying on being spoon fed by others, including me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This isn't the end of the story

Classic response for someone unwilling to entertain views different from their own. You may remain willfully ignorant if you like, but it only makes you look foolish to those who see information from all sides.

Just to give you one more chance, please watch this video with Hillary and Chris Mathews. It is just one of many, many videos showing her flip flopping and lieing about her postions. You can search for videos of her going after Bill’s victims as well. So any more posting about me not having answers will show you for the lazy, unimformed person you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

“Classic response for someone unwilling to entertain views different from their own. “

I doubt they were asking for views/opinions, they were asking for supporting evidence which backs up your claims – in the absence of which said claims are tossed in the dumper.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This isn't the end of the story

And I have told them repeatedly to search YouTube for any subject they wish and they will see what Hillary and the other Dems have said in the past about any subject they wish. The fact that they want me to pick a subject is a diversion so they can pretend I didn’t show anything and they can avoid doing any searching themselves. They wish to remain willfully ignorant of what their leadership actually says, does and believes. Just pick a topic and search, can’t get any easier than that, but sure blame me for your ignorance if you wish.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 This isn't the end of the story

“And I have told them repeatedly to search YouTube”

Why should anyone do what you tell them? You are the one attempting to persuade others into believing what you say is correct – others are calling out your bullshit and all you can do is repeat what you already said.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This isn't the end of the story

For example, the left tried to claim they would have never gone into Iraq the second time. A quick search of YouTube will show countless videos of Hillary, Gore, Kerry, etc all backing the invasion of Iraq.

Hillary voted for military action in Iraq. Which up to that point meant the occasional air strike and “Tomahawk therapy”, NOT a full invasion and decade-long military occupation.

And she voted for it based on Bush’s promise that it was leverage for a push for a diplomatic solution (making Saddam Hussein readmit U.N. weapons inspectors.) Bush broke that promise and didn’t allow time for the diplomatic approach to play out.

And of course the vote was based on the evidence presented for Saddam’s active WMD program – evidence which turned out to be a lie by the Bush White House.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This isn't the end of the story

The truth is much more nuanced than that. Many countries thought Saddam had WMDs. Saddam did too good of job convincing the world he had them in order to hold back Iran. Also, the intelligence communities failed and did not share data, which led to the rise of the DHS. So Bush was acting on bad intel just as the left was. Only the left lied about actually supporting the invasion but the sheeple had short memories and believe them. The media did not call them out on it, but the internet never forgets. Thus YouTube is full of videos showing them favoring the invasion then later saying they never favored it. Hillary is the queen of these liars.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This isn't the end of the story

Also, the intelligence communities failed and did not share data, which led to the rise of the DHS. So Bush was acting on bad intel just as the left was.

They gave Bush good intelligence, but it wasn’t what he wanted to hear.

American intelligence told Bush that the Niger yellowcake story was false. He used it anyway in a State of the Union address. Colin Powell used that and other fake evidence to testify before the UN Security Council anyway

When the world found out it was a lie, the CIA had to fall on their sword and apologize for Bush’s lie. When someone didn’t follow THAT script, the White House outed his wife as a CIA agent and destroyed her career. (Scooter Libby fell on HIS sword and took the blame, and was promptly pardoned by the White House.)

“The left” and most everyone else had to depend on information from Bush II / Cheney / Rumsfeld, not from the intelligence community. It turned out to be a lie, just like what they promised to do with the vote on it.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This isn't the end of the story

Mostly accurate, but the following corrections:

1) Libby wasn’t pardoned, his sentence was commuted. There’s a difference; his conviction stands but he was released early. (There’s been some conjecture that the reason he wasn’t pardoned is that then he could have been compelled to testify against Bush and Cheney.)

2) There were plenty of people on the left who were openly skeptical of the Bush Administration’s claims; unfortunately, they were largely unheeded. The New York Times went with Judith Miller’s version of the story, which basically parroted the Bush Administration unquestioningly, and for “supporting evidence” used sources like Curveball and Chalabi who obviously stood to gain something by lying.

Unfortunately, hawkish Democrats like Clinton and Kerry went along with the Bush Administration’s case for war instead of listening to the skeptics. I did not then, nor do I now, believe that they did this because they truly believed Bush had made an adequate case to go to war; I think they went along with him because they mistakenly believed that the war would be popular and supporting it would be good for their political careers.

3) The intelligence community actually did believe Saddam had WMD’s, but it believed he still had stockpiles of chemical weapons, not that he had a nuclear weapons program of any kind. (It turns out he had neither; his chemical weapons stockpiles had been destroyed, partly by airstrikes and partly by the passage of time.) But the Bush Administration deliberately conflated the intelligence about chemical weapons with the uncorroborated claims of nuclear weapons, and put both under the umbrella term “weapons of mass destruction”.

The distinction is important. Chemical weapons are awful, but even when Iraq had them, they were no threat to the US. Nuclear weapons would of course be a threat to the US.

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This isn't the end of the story

“And she voted for it based on Bush’s promise that it was leverage for a push for a diplomatic solution (making Saddam Hussein readmit U.N. weapons inspectors.)”

http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/

“Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.””

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/text

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This isn't the end of the story

For example, the left tried to claim they would have never gone into Iraq the second time. A quick search of YouTube will show countless videos of Hillary, Gore, Kerry, etc all backing the invasion of Iraq. But come election time, they lie about it and the liberal media let them off the hook.

Yeah, the liberal media has covered this story so little that when I type clinton supported iraq into Google, I only get 74 million results.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This isn't the end of the story

OK; so the argument goes from “Hillary refers to Muslims in a most derogatory way” to “the left tried to claim they would have never gone into Iraq the second time”

Everyone’s two-facedness regarding Iraq is already well covered; everyone voting already knows that very few candidates have stayed the course on that issue. Guantanamo is even worse. What exactly does it have to do with Hillary’s alleged derogatory speech? I’m sure there’s some out there, even if it’s out of context. But so far, all I’ve seen is allegations. It’s almost like people can’t bother to dig that stuff up because they know it’s pointless. Hillary hasn’t gone around claiming that she loves all Muslims and has never said a bad word about them. Trump keeps inviting fact checking on his statements, and the facts keep rolling in. This difference is mostly due to Hillary’s experience in the political arena; she tries to avoid saying/doing things in a way that can make her look bad — which is why the major claims against her are with regards to destroying evidence.

Trying to smear her character when her only real opponent’s character is demonstrated to be significantly worse than hers could ever be, week after week, is pointless. Trying to minimize her experience when her only opponent has virtually none just serves to remind us of this fact; digging up all her failed or questionable decisions will do nothing to change this.

So what really needs to happen is Trump’s team needs to stop attacking Hillary in areas where she’s demonstrably better than Trump, and start focusing solely on areas where Trump is squeaky clean — and on the other topics, focus on the positive changes Trump will make if elected, instead of on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket and only someone with his moral fortitude can save the day.

Really; the American Voters aren’t that stupid, no matter who gets more airtime in the media and for what. Both candidates are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot; Trump is just firing faster than Hilary.

As you argue: the information is already all out there. And yet very few people seem to be voting for Jill Stein.

Ninja (profile) says:

Trump is a living parody

A sad one but a parody of the most conservative US. PArt of the support he had was due to people fed up with the establishment (and Hillary is the preferred candidate of the establishment). But he is so bigoted, so racist, so bad that he is losing that support altogether. And he still has a lot of support. This speaks volumes of humanity because he’s far from the only example in the world.

We have made astonishing progress in sciences and technology but in the human field we are walking the slug pace, unfortunately.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Trump is a living parody

Two words, my friend: Powell Memorandum. This version is easy to copy extracts from: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/

The trouble with allowing corporate interests to embed propaganda in the media, in educational establishments, and in political discourse is that “corporate interests” isn’t one cohesive group. Result: money has been poured into promoting conflicting right wing causes by individuals and groups each trying to advance their own agendas. This accounts for the fracturing of discourse while the whole damn lot lurches rightwards.

Meanwhile the Republican party has been courting the fringe loons and using wedge issues to drag people on to their side as part of the Southern Strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

So if you add both together the endgame candidate is either Clinton or Trump, depending on whether you’re motivated more by money and power or by privilege and paranoia. There’s no way rigging the game could possibly create an alternate scenario with sane, qualified candidates. The entire system needs to be reset and opened up so a more honest conversation can take place, possibly with a view to creating an electoral system based on proportional representation in which people are invited to engage.

A girl can dream.

Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Trump is a living parody

What I find amusing is that Drumpf (Make Donald Drumpf Again!) was running as an anti-establishment candidate. But isn’t an establishment candidate somebody who takes money and pushes legislation in the giver’s favor? If so, then Drumpf isn’t anti-establishment, but the source of the establishment as he had often bragged about how much money he gave to the establishment.

Anonymous Coward says:

The fact that NBC is a rich multi-billion dollar corporation makes the delay even more absurd.

The cost of hypothetical legal fees defending such a story should easily be a drop in the bucket for such a large corporation. We’re not just talking about a small news organization, or just a single TV show here, we’re talking about the entire NBC broadcast channel, as well as MSNBC.

If there’s anyone who should be immune to threats of nuisance legal threats, it’s freaking NBC!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

See that is exactly why I think there is far more to it than a simple fear of Trump.

I would not be surprised if evidence comes out that executives knew about this behavior and enabled it to continue to have Trump on the Apprentice and other shows. They they initially refused to run the tape because they feared the public backlash and multiple victim lawsuits.

Anonymous Coward says:

I honestly do believe that NBC is using the “afraid of being sued” excuse as a cover up for why they really didn’t release the tapes. Access Hollywood is literally a safe haven for truly horrible people, who probably have truly horrible things to say. If they become scared that Access Hollywood is going to leak, intentionally or not, these horrible things the show will no longer be granted the access they need to survive.

Anon says:

Like Healthcare

Here in Canada – unless there’s a compelling reason, the loser pays the legal expenses of the winner. For some reason, that results in a lot less civil frivolous lawsuits.

Maybe the US should look at the Canadian system; just like health care.

(PS. What the heck was Trump talking about in the second debate with Canadian health care? Yes, we have line-ups if your care is not critical, but the only people who go south for care are those with a TON of money or for cutting edge procedures – after all the USA still does have the leading edge hospitals and doctors for new and experimental procedures. If it’s an emergency, any citizen gets the best possible health care immediately and it costs them nothing.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Like Healthcare

after all the USA still does have the leading edge hospitals and doctors for new and experimental procedures

Hmm, wonder why that is? Maybe because they aren’t government run? Also, I have seen that Canadians can actually pay for better care than the base healthcare system provides. So in effect, those with money can get better care. The very thing liberals decry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Like Healthcare

Australian hospitals and universities regularly develop cutting edge medical procedures. I’ve been the guinea pig for a couple. People often complain about our public health system but I would rather be treated here than in the States. What do people in the US get in exchange for their taxes? Is it the difference in population that makes the cost seem so high or the love of capitalism?

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Like Healthcare

It’s the same in Canada. Insulin, the Polio vaccine, AIDS drug 3TC and recent major breakthroughs in stem cell research came out of Canada. A lab in my home town of Winnipeg was the first in the world to decode the genetic sequences for both the H1N1 flu virus and the SARS virus. Biovail Corporation here is developing drugs for the treatment of neurological conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.

But that’s not what American healthcare corporation owned and operated congressmen want to hear.

When former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas was running for president in 1992, he lashed out at the Canadian health model. Tsongas had suffered from lymphoma, and claimed that the bone marrow transplant that saved his life was an example of how the American system spurred innovation that would never happen under creativity-stifling Canadian-style health care.

The only problem with his claim was that the key research breakthroughs that led to bone marrow transplants were made in Toronto, and Canadians, at the time Tsongas was speaking, were receiving the procedure more often than Americans.

More recently Newfoundland premier Danny Williams headed south for heart surgery, much to the delight of American Republicans. But the “minimally invasive” robotic surgery that Premier Wilson got, was invented in Canada and was immediately available in at least four centers across Canada. But America has centers that cater to the Very Wealthy, complete with lodgings for family members. Even Canadians admit that America does a better job of catering to the Very Wealthy.

Not that you need to be wealthy to use private healthcare in Canada. I’ve done it myself. It cost far less than in the US, because the Canadian system covered what it would have cost had I stayed with the public system. My private health insurance through work covered the difference – health insurance that’s far cheaper than in the US because of what the public system covered.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

She bullied them to protect Bill, who else would she do it for? If you want proof, do some searching on YouTube and you will find all kinds of videos on both of the Clinton’s. But as it is, you choose to be spoon fed by a liberal media so you will never see or hear the rest of the story.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The saying is true, you can lead a man to college but you can’t make him think. Please take the blue pill and go on believing in your one-sided media informed view. There are no counter opinions; there are especially no counter facts to your beliefs. Do not seek them out, do not search for yourself. But whatever you do, please don’t speak up in these conversations or you will continually be taken to task by the non-low information voters.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The bathroom change was put on the public with no debate. In all my years and my wife’s years, we have never seen anyone in our respective restrooms of the other gender. This tells you, that the true transgenders were already using the bathroom of their choice. I have never seen anyone who looks like or dresses like a woman in the mens restroom.

Also, are you not suspect that the guy in NC who is pushing this is a registered sex offender? Is it not curious that he wants access to girls bathrooms and showers?

What about the NBA who has pulled games from NC for human rights issues? Yet they play games in China? And they are opening stores in Qatar, Saudia Arabia and others where they kill homosexuals. It takes 4 men to prove a woman was raped and somehow those 4 male witnesses are not around. If they are so gender neutral, why do they separate the WNBA from the NBA? Shouldn’t a 7′ tall transgender male be allowed to join the WNBA and play against 6′ tall women? She could be the highest paid player in the WNBA.

This is what I mean by no public debate. The pandora’s box opened by this is enormous. The motivations of the people behind the issue should be examined.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

I brought it up to illustrate a point. You ignored the point and went off on an insane ramble about how trans people are sexual predators who only transition so they can win at basketball.

You like The Matrix, right? Okay. Well, it was written and directed by two trans women. Ergo, you have some common ground with some trans people, right? Maybe you can start looking at them as ordinary people who just want to be treated with decency and respect, instead of being treated like they’re predators and con artists.

Then again, maybe you like predators and con artists. After all, you’re a Trump supporter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

I loved the Matrix and I don’t care how people want to live their lives. Unlike the leftist beliefs, those on the right are not racists, bigots, sexists, phobes any more than those on the left. Sure, there are some, but Bill Clinton is a rapist and sexual predator and I don’t believe that makes everyone on the left one. But the left love their name calling and labeling because it shuts down real discussion of the topics.

Speaking of topics, how is it that people who practice infanticide believe they are some kind of morally superior people? You dehumanize children in the same way the Dems dehumanized slaves and spent the next 100 years after the civil war fighting their right to vote and equal rights. It is the same attitude used to name call and label and dehumanize people you disagree with. You guys will never learn, not even after more than a hundred years.

Oh, and I am not a Trump supporter. I will vote for him though as a vote against Hillary.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Exactly. If he were really not a Trump supporter, and does not like Hillary, then he should vote for a third party, and spend his time working on reforming the system, so that third party votes matter.

Money in politics for one. The whole voting system for another. The fact of political parties for a third. The list goes on and on.

Yet he spends his time defending someone he does not like. Hmm!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Uh, no. A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary. While I am not a Trump supporter, I do support the Republicans as a whole. Keeping the Dems out of power is a priority. They have run the national debt to an unbelievable high and Hillary will continue spending like a drunken sailor. Any hope we have of avoiding a major, long term crash depends on keeping the Dems out of office.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

They have run the national debt to an unbelievable high

You do realize that a big part of why the national debt exploded as soon as Obama took office is that prior to that, they weren’t counting the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars toward the national debt, right?

Bush cut taxes while we were fighting two wars. Republicans sure didn’t seem worried about the national debt then. Weird how it only becomes an issue when there’s a Democrat in office.

I mean, unless it’s Bill Clinton and he reduces the debt. In that case, Republicans don’t care about the national debt either, just whether the President’s had an affair with an intern.

Any hope we have of avoiding a major, long term crash depends on keeping the Dems out of office.

Yeah, because the last time we had a Republican President, he did a great job of preventing a financial collapse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

The old “Bush’s Fault” party line. Even after 8 years you guys won’t give that up. So if we get 8 of Hillary and the debt puts us into bankruptcy whose fault will it be?

We have not had a financial collapse under a Repub. We have had the ordinary, run of the mill recession. Now the great recession happened under Obama. We had a housing bubble pop. A housing bubble caused by a law Bill Clinton signed.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

The old “Bush’s Fault” party line. Even after 8 years you guys won’t give that up.

[…]

A housing bubble caused by a law Bill Clinton signed.

I can’t help pointing out the irony of you bitching about people talking about a President who left office eight years ago and then immediately pivot to blaming one who left office sixteen years ago.

But, real talk? The President only has so much control over the economy.

You’re right that Bill Clinton helped to cause the recession, with deregulation he passed during his term. And I’m right that George Bush contributed to the national debt by passing a tax cut while fighting two wars.

But it’s Congress that writes the bills. And it’s corporate America that takes advantage of any leeway it’s given, without regard to long-term risks or consequences.

So, to answer your question: if there’s a financial collapse under Clinton, whose fault is it? Well, that depends on the nature of the financial collapse, and what policies led to it. It could be something she was responsible for (she certainly was a cheerleader for harmful deregulation of the financial industry); it could be something she wasn’t.

I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. All I know is what’s happened in the past.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Unlike the leftist beliefs, those on the right are not racists, bigots, sexists, phobes any more than those on the left.

And yet you’re the only guy here suggesting that trans people should be denied rights because otherwise they’ll grope people in restrooms and cheat at basketball.

Dems dehumanized slaves and spent the next 100 years after the civil war fighting their right to vote and equal rights.

True. Which brings us up to the 1960’s. Funny how Republicans’ history of race relations in America always seems to stop there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Trans people aren’t denied rights. There is no right to enter the restroom of the opposite gender. Besides, they are already using the bathroom of the opposite gender as you don’t see women in the mens or vice versa. What you aren’t addressing is the issue that the guy behind this push is a registered sex offender. He already knows real trans are using the bathroom they wish to use. He is pushing for his access to girls bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.

Are history does not stop in the 60’s, it continues into the 70’s and to the present with Roe v. Wade. If you want to see the relationship between abortion and racism, please YouTube it. It affects african americans to a much greater degree than Caucasian and that is why it was pushed for by Margaret Sanger. So the Dems racism extends to the very point of aborting them. Don’t believe me, check Hillary’s remarks praising Margaret.

Or are you going to remain willfully ignorant of the connection and not YouTube it?

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

I know who Margaret Sanger was, chuckles; she’s yet another tired right-wing talking point about how Democrats are the real racists that never seem to include any examples from the past half-century.

Margaret Sanger had some pretty disgusting eugenicist views.

But it’s possible to believe that somebody was despicable in one respect but that her work also helped a lot of people. There’s no contradiction in that; lots of people who have done good work have had deep personal flaws.

Planned Parenthood has done an immense amount of good in helping with family planning and reproductive health — and the Republicans’ obsession with trying to defund it has done real and measurable harm. Pence’s crusade against PP led to a massive HIV spike in parts of Indiana. And what about the recent nonsense where the Republicans held up Zika funding because they didn’t want any to go to Planned Parenthood — because when you’ve got a disease that can be sexually transmitted and which causes birth defects, of course you shouldn’t let anybody hand out condoms or birth control pills!

But, y’know, we weren’t actually talking about abortion until you brought it up, we were talking about racism. (Which we also weren’t talking about until you brought it up, come to think of it.)

Your crocodile tears over the racism of Planned Parenthood notwithstanding, I can’t help but notice that Donald Trump’s support from African-American voters is in the single digits. It would seem to me that African-Americans do not generally share your views that Democrats are the real racists because Margaret Sanger. I suggest that, rather than talk about what black people should be concerned about, you spend time actually listening to what they are concerned about. Maybe have some real conversations, ask some questions, get to know people, and listen to them respectfully even if their views don’t match yours. You might learn something.

I bet you can even find a few videos on the subject on YouTube.

sorrykb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

the Wikileaks documents show Hillary referring to Muslims as sand…. (fill in the blanks)

Aaaaannnnnnd… now we see the quality of your “research”.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-sand-wikileaks-dump/
Your claim has been debunked, complete with citation to original sources.
I’d say you’ve utterly blown your credibility, but… well…

sorrykb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

You know the really good thing about Snopes?
They don’t just say: “This is so” or “This isn’t so.” They actually provide citations to other sources to prove it.
You should try that.

Now I think we’re done with you, because you have demonstrated beyond all doubt that you’re not merely ignorant, but willfully ignorant. The former can be rectified. The latter is damning.

RK57957 says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

As someone who went to college I remember what one of my professors stated: do your own damned work and don’t expect others to do it for you.

So if you are going to make a statement and then bitch and moan when others do not go out to do your work to validate your statement and then asking them to stay silent when they point out you are being lazy … then you can go fuck yourself.

RK57957 says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

No what you are doing is trying to avoid and deflect and I have the feeling it’s because you’re either full of shit or were mis-representing something and once you got called out on it you couldn’t gracefully acquiesce.

Although I’m feeling gracious we can call your specious unsubstantiated shit storm a lesson in teaching others to do “research”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Do you think it might be possible that many on here have already done their own research, and it doesn’t agree with your conclusions? If you have data they aren’t privy to, I’m certain they’d be interested in it. If you only have links to hearsay, innuendo and putdowns, they probably have better things to do with their time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

No I don’t. Their research is getting the same info from a half dozen liberal outlets that are basically just the same source. Go to YouTube and search out videos on the stuff you hear the right wing nutjobs talking about and you will see Hillary, Al, Kerry and all the others actually saying the things right wingers are talking about. It is them, in their interviews and press conferences. It is in Wikileaks from their own email. You and the others are remaining ignorant by choice. It is extremely sad and we will never make progress as long as you choose ignorance.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I’ve taken courses on how to do effective research; I’ve gone to conferences focused on improving use of research data. Nothing I’ve seen you write in this thread so far falls under “teach” — it falls under naysaying and telling people they’re ignoramuses who refuse to get their heads out of the sand.

If any of my instructors had shown up and said “you can find everything you need to know about this on YouTube; get your heads out of the sand and do some proper research before you come back to my class” they probably would have been fired in short order.

So yes, I’d agree that so far you’ve been a taker. Feel free to turn that around and give us something new.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I am not a teacher, besides Google is unbelievably easy to use. So again, attack me if you want, but that is no excuse for not searching for yourself. I have listed several things above you can start with, like the link between the DNC and Hillary rigging things against Bernie. The racist DNC emails. Hillary’s connection to a racist pro-abortionist. Hillary’s attacking and silencing of Bill’s victims. Its all there. Its so easy to find. Don’t rely on others to tell you what is, search and find it for yourself. Or remain ignorant. It really is your choice.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

I got into a similar conversation over Basic Income. I did the research as advised and came out with more reasons than ever to oppose it. This is the main reason why you don’t get other people to prove your point for you; they’re unlikely to use the same sources of reference that you do.

Which is why you’re hiding behind “Dig it up yourself,” aren’t you? You know damn well that if you provide us with the links to the evidence that backs up your position there’s a damn good chance we’ll find it’s not credible.

That said, I find Hillary odious; she’s actually a neocon war hawk. Democrats are not automatically left wing or progressive as such, it’s just that the party caters to those people to get their votes.

timmaguire42 (profile) says:

It's a nice storey but...

I know enough about the news media and their relationship to first amendment lawsuits to know it doesn’t pass the smell test. The idea that they would hold this tape because they were worried about getting sued is laughable. They get sued all the time. Occupational hazard. They know it and they budget for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's a nice storey but...

Yes. However, they also have a number of lucrative contracts that may be in jeopardy if they released the tape. Plus, there’s the issue of the can of worms this opens; it’s possible that many high ranking people at NBC may get personally drawn in to the fight, and allegations might be raised that result in more than just a loss of corporate money.

bob says:

the timing is too convenient

I also am not buying the excuse that they were afraid of being sued. I would bet they knew about the tape a lot sooner. They we’re just waiting for a good opportunity to release it when it was too late for republicans to choose a new candidate.

The fact that this is what causes people to dump trump is laughable. As John Oliver points out, there were many other problems with Trump’s conduct and words previous to this video that Trump should have been dumped a long time ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: the timing is too convenient

Well, to be fair, in his own words, it’s not what he does with other people’s genitals, it’s what he says he’s done with other people’s genitals. And based on the other things he’s said, you can be sure that what he says and what he does aren’t necessarily the same thing. Locker Room Talk, you know.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Locker Room Talk” How many guys sit around the table or bar, look at a woman and talk about how they would bang her? Was Trump talking about “assaulting” women or was he talking about because of who he was, he could bang women? Are women that go backstage at a rock concert and bang the band being “assaulted”? Trump is an idiot and part of me believes that he actually wants Hillary to win, but should he be accused of assaulting women?

My vote this year will be “None of the Above”

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re:

If they were waiting for a strategic moment, it wouldn’t have been after the first debate. The first debate is usually the last shot the candidates have at moving the polls; the second and third debate usually don’t move the needle significantly.

There’s a reason for the phrase “October surprise”: events that significantly shift the race this late in the campaign are rare enough that it’s surprising when it happens.

Christ, early voting has already started in some states. If you were trying to swing an election, why on Earth would you wait until after people had already started voting?

Never mind that, y’know, this isn’t going to swing the election; aggregate polls and betting odds were giving Clinton an 80% chance of winning before this story broke. This is likely to increase her lead even further, and it could impact some down-ballot races that were already close. But Trump would still be in serious trouble even if this story had never broken.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“he might have raped others”

Because he didn’t rape one, you casually dismiss the others.

“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.” – Hillary

But the above quote only applies to people other than Bill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It is a very difficult line to draw. Particularly the social differences, makes it a statutory situation. Statutory rape? She claims to have consented, but it is all but impossible to tell if that is a result of the enormous social pressure. The doubt that Trump exploits is a double edged sword, though.

Trumps lewd comments are certainly walking the morally problematic side of “should have known better”, no matter what (Running a pageant, the pressure is even more on the girls since the counterweight to political figures are clear and useful for protection). As much as Bill Clinton cannot be cleared by a court, I would not advise him taking the relativity test against Bill Clinton, since it sentences himself, while making Hillary a victim and not an offender…

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t think Monica ever claimed she was raped. Others did. My point is that Bill used his position (as famous person, president) to bang an intern. She had sex with him for who he was. That isn’t rape. Oh, and it happens in companies all throughout the country too, where older men have sex with interns. Is that assault? Is that rape?

My point isn’t that Donald Trump isn’t a pig (because he is, but a lot of guys are pigs), it is that he wasn’t out there assaulting women back then (and probably now.)

Anonymous Coward says:

The biggest victim of this election is the public’s perception of the media. The left believed that Fox was just a republican tool for the right. This election, the rest of the media has been so slanted that now the right doesn’t believe anything that is being covered. Now people are left with nothing that they can trust.

Not sure that is what we had in mind when we asked for of the 4th estate.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re:

You really think this is new to this election?

Republicans have been suspicious of the media for decades. Nixon used to say “The press is the enemy.” The phrase “the liberal media” is not a new one.

Indeed, Fox News’s conservative slant was deliberately designed to counter the “liberal bias” that many conservatives see in the media. (And then MSNBC eventually positioned itself as a liberal counterbalance to Fox News — though it’s still got a prominent conservative voice in Joe Scarborough.)

I think partisans of any stripe are inclined to claim media bias any time they see a story that criticizes their party or candidate. Sometimes those criticisms are valid, sometimes they aren’t.

I think that, in a practical sense, the news media’s bias isn’t toward Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives, it’s toward ratings. Whatever story’s going to get the most attention, that’s the story they’re going to go with.

Often, that means a narrative that depicts some sort of arc, a rise and a fall. In Trump’s case, the media gave him a hell of a lot more coverage than any other candidate, and it helped him clinch the nomination; now, it’s got a nice juicy story to sink its teeth into, and so it’s savaging him over that.

The press has spent plenty of time pillorying Clinton, too; her E-Mail scandal got considerable coverage. The most recent news from Wikileaks is getting less attention (though it’s getting some attention), and that’s because wall street speeches are less likely to capture viewers’ interest than dirty words and groping.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

As much as Fox is conservative, that is mostly in their angling of the stories. When it comes to Trump, the man is just difficult to cover in a positive light since he sabotages himself so heavily whenever he opens his mouth.

What is left of really Trump-enthusiastic media is very exclusive and tends to lean towards more conspiratorial thinking than what is found in the mainstream media.

As much as these sources have a claim to fame, they are spinning more obviously and more towards making Clinton unelectable.

Anonymous Coward says:

OK, totally offtrack. Saddam didn’t have chemical weapons? Go back, we were sitting there waiting to hit Iraq. Everyone knew we would hit Iraq. How long did Saddam have to get rid of his chemical weapons? Its not like his neighbors would have minded receiving those. He could have had tons and shipped them off to neighbors long before we actually went in.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Techdirt readers complained that I was clearly just stirring up shit because I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter.”

So you finally admit it. Not that you needed to, it’s painfully obvious that you’re sucking her ass by the coverage ratios alone. Yes, you’ve posted a few token stories about Hillary to project the illusion of “balanced coverage”, but when the anti-Trump pieces are weighed against those “anti-“Hillary, your blind allegiance becomes obvious. Shit, you even tried to turn the wikileaks email dumps targeting Hillary into an anti-Trump piece. Otherwise, you’ve not covered those leaks on a per-se basis even at all. Additionally, and just like Michael Che, you’ve resorted to flat out lying about Trump to get your baby-assed way. It’s not “rape” or “sexual assault” when consent is involved. Seriously, what part of “they let you” does your phucktaded brain not understand?

sorrykb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...

thank you very much for the complement

The word you want there is “compliment”.

“Complement” means “something that completes something else or makes it better”; e.g.,
“Your bizarre insults are the perfect complement to your colossal ignorance.”

John Mayor says:

THE POT AND THE KETTLE, AND GLASS HOUSES

But!… equally bad, is the abmysmal failure of these Media giants to even provide a Clog window in their respective sites, to facilitate Free Expression on blogs offered up! And so… although I can sympathize and empathize about the Media being denied their Digital Human Rights, I’m equally disgusted with the fact that these would have no, or little regard for their respective audiences’ Digital Human Rights!
.
Please!… no emails!

Anonymous Coward says:

Popcorn at the rady

As a non US person I thank the commentators for their entertainment as it implodes into a pro / anti Trump match.
I especially like the frequent use of the terms left / liberal.
From my Western European standpoint, Republicans and Democrats are both right wing, its all perspective. If there was only 1 tiny policy difference between the 2 main US parties there would doubtless still be massive partisanship.

John Mayor says:

ANGELINA JOLIE SLAPPs PEREZ HILTON

In keeping with Mike’s theme here… I ran into the ensuing just after midnight!…
.
http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/angelina-jolie-to-sue-perez-hilton-for-divorce-coverage-35120713.html
.
To end… although I don’t view Perez Hilton as a true representative of the “media”– as such!– I found the dialogue intriguing! And I am curious to know what AJ is specifically concerned about!
.
Please!… no emails!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...