Re: 2016 Election
 

So, the whole Gettysburg thing was another con. When will the media stop falling for this ruse? In two weeks I guess. The Trump campaign announces a huge policy announcement in order to get them to televise his speech and then he just gives another crazy-ass stump speech. The general takeaway -

1. Trump doesn't know the difference between "hallowed" and "hollowed". I'm sure it was written out for him as "hallowed" but he assumed it was a typo because he had never actually seen the word before.

2. Congress will be paying for the Mexican wall and then Mexico will reimburse them. No problem. Sounds like a voucher program.

3. Women are all liars and will be sued after the election.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I think the Russian angle is being overblown. It's not going to have as big an influence as Republican's voter suppression efforts. It's also not going have as big an influence as whoever it was who leaked Trump's taxes, or that Access Hollywood tape.

My big concern is that whenever anything embarrassing is found in the Podesta emails, it's just deflected to Russia and there is no critical thinking done. I get that Clinton and her pet media hacks don't want any criticism before the election, but is the lack of criticism going to continue after the election?

Re: 2016 Election
 

I've done the critical thinking. I just don't see anything bad enough to make me change my vote. Maybe if she was running against somebody squeaky clean --- but she isn't.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I cringe when I hear Clinton going on about the Russians trying to influence the US election. After all, the historical master at influencing - and rigging - foreign countries' elections is... the US.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Good point, it isn't like the alternative is sane.

I think they keep mentioning the Russians because it helps cast doubt on the veracity of the releases.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Right, and that's fine, I agree, she's still the least worst option.

It's kind of worrying that I see a lot of "that's just how politics works" attitude from the media, and that's the problem. There shouldn't be such a cozy relationship between the press and politicians. The job of the media is supposed to be to speak truth to power, but that's been lost.

Re: 2016 Election
 

It depends on which media outlet you're looking at. FOX has lost their mind over the emails.

I also think it has a lot to do with the laziness and attention span of the average American. Most people are just not as interested in this election as those of us on this thread. So, if the story is convoluted and lacking in any clear "gotchas" then it's just not going to capture their imagination.

Pretty much everybody including CNN, The New York Times, and even MSNBC have covered the emails ... they're just no that riveting.

One of the email scandals that was supposed to be so HORRIBLE was an alleged remark, made by a Catholic, about why some conservatives choose Catholicism over being an evangelical. I didn't think it was remotely incendiary, maybe a bit snarky, I also found it to be refreshingly honest.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I saw someone describe the majority of the emails being essentially about "campaign staff being obsessed with campaigning stuff and making their candidate look good and stuff". It's hardly mind blowing.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Just opened my Oregon postal ballot. Now how do you spell Trump.

Re: 2016 Election
 

C... u... n...

You get the picture.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I think the issue of attention span may depend on part of country one is in. Not saying people in my area have longer attention spans, but the main reasons they are voting for Trump ( in the countryside) or Clinton ( in the cities) I doubt would be affected one way or another by any of the issues the media covers whether FOX or MSNBC. The Trump voters here either just anti-Clinton, or consider a Clinton victory just the status quo, which isn't good around here for the poor or working class. The Clinton voters either just anti-Trump or approve the programs she promises.

I do hear some evangelicals having second thoughts due to Trump's comments on the tapes about women, and on other hand Catholics having second thoughts about Podesta's comments. I hear a lot more people talking about the election, but it appears there is so much back and forth about who said this or did that, that most voters just tuning out such issues.

My son in North Carolina and reports the same sort of situation, but that Clinton will probably easily win North Carolina.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Right. Because the media only cares about the reality TV/gossip side of this, because that's the type of bullshit that people care about.

You don't get much coverage of the emails showing reporters friendly to the Clinton campaign who would willingly write pieces attacking Bernie Sanders when they were asked. I think it's fair to say we know why that is.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I don't need a picture. Mrs L has marked the voters pamphlet with the right choice for each candidate and measure. :p

Re: 2016 Election
 

Trump...never ending source of shady crap.
Report: Trump Claimed $17M in Fake Storm Damages - The Daily Beast

Re: 2016 Election
 

What you would not want is either of them also ending up with Congress.