Hillary Clinton holds a press conference - Polidicks

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-torches-trump-in-first-formal-press-conference-in-278-days-142412221.html[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton took yet another step on Thursday in opening up to the media: a 16-minute formal press conference during which she slammed Donald Trump for suggesting Russian President Vladimir Putin is a better leader than Barack Obama. Though the event was similar to the two “gaggles” she held on her plane with reporters earlier in the week, Clinton took the extra step Thursday of giving the media a half-hour warning before answering questions on live video at a podium on the tarmac in White Plains, N.Y. With the event, Clinton effectively ended the months-long standoff with her press corps, which led Trump to brand her “Hiding Hillary.”[/quote]

i'm not exactly certain why this ever was a big deal though, its not like she's been hiding from everyone this whole time. ya she was not taking direct questions from reporters until now but she was still answering questions at events and forums

[QUOTE=Sableye;51025858]i'm not exactly certain why this ever was a big deal though, its not like she's been hiding from everyone this whole time. ya she was not taking direct questions from reporters until now but she was still answering questions at events and forums[/QUOTE] It was a big deal because someone campaigning for President wasn't actually allowing anybody to ask her questions.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51025878]It was a big deal because someone campaigning for President wasn't actually allowing anybody to ask her questions.[/QUOTE] She was, just not in a traditional press conference setting.

I like how Clinton hosting a press conference is news worthy without even going into the content of the conference. On top of that, the press conference was only 16 minutes long. After watching the video in the source, Clinton keeps using the same attacks which don't seem to stick. Trump x Putin relationship and saying that old presidents wouldn't like Trump. Clinton's gotta start making herself look good instead of attacking Trump if she wants to regain the lead she's lost.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025892]Is it the one where she offers chocolate to the press thanking them for being "cooperative" instead of answering any questions? [/QUOTE] Clinton gives chocolate to reporters and Trump bans them from asking critical questions, I wonder which is worse :v:

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51025888] After watching the video in the source, Clinton keeps using the same attacks which don't seem to stick. Trump x Putin relationship[/QUOTE] Hard stop: Trump is the friendliest voice for Putin in years and his former campaign manager worked for the pro-Russian administration of Ukraines government. Paul [I]Fucking [/I]Ryan backed away from Trump's recent statements when asked if he agreed that Putin was a strong leader. Trumps VP floundered looking for a way to defend it on CNN yesterday and kept deflecting to Reagan. He didn't want to go up to bat for the guy who says Putin is a strong leader. These are people on Trumps side, in his campaign. These attacks absolutely stick to anyone that follows current events or knows that Putin is more corrupt than the most hideous iteration of Clinton you can pull from the fever-dreams of your average Trump supporter. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025934]Like they do in every news conference he held- and still holds, [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFG5vBg45qs"]where he answers them straightforwardly[/URL]?[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean except for that blacklist. If the choice is between no press conferences (but still speaking to press and media and attending rallies regularly) and press conferences where you ban everyone you feel is too critical of you, I'd readily take the former.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51025919]Clinton gives chocolate to reporters and Trump bans them from asking critical questions, I wonder which is worse :v:[/QUOTE] Idk seems like both are pretty shit in regards to how they handle the press.

Pretty sure various sites also found that at this conference (or maybe the last one) she was wearing a concealed headphone...

[QUOTE=Durandal;51025954]Idk seems like both are pretty shit in regards to how they handle the press.[/QUOTE] The former is smart politics: Clinton is weak in a press conference setting. If she just refused to do rallies, answer questions, do interviews etc I'd definitely say something is wrong, but she does do these things. She just doesn't do press conferences in particular. It's unusual, and arguably ends up meaning you don't get as clear a picture of her as a candidate (on the flipside, this also works against her as much as it helps her) but I don't really see anything morally ambiguous about it. Watching Trump snub outlets that have attended Republican press conferences for years or even decades is a huge black flag to me.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51025959]Pretty sure various sites also found that at this conference (or maybe the last one) she was wearing a concealed headphone...[/QUOTE] This instinctively sounds like complete bullshit, need a solid source and evidence

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025962]Easy to say when that specific news outlet has clear ties with the Hillary campaign, even so the "ban" was already lifted so your point doesn't even hold up[/QUOTE] Which specific outlet? All of the ones he prevented from coming to his press conferences? My point absolutely holds up when you link a conference that happened before the ban was lifted, check your dates next time. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51025959]Pretty sure various sites also found that at this conference (or maybe the last one) she was wearing a concealed headphone...[/QUOTE] Various sites also report that Clinton is a cold, shrewd political operator capable of precision assassination missions that leave zero trace as well as manipulating local, state, and federal authorities to keep her immune from prosecution, as well as simultaneously a walking corpse who is constantly on deaths door and suffers from nearly every malignancy that medicine has thus far been able to diagnose.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025892]Is it the one where she offers chocolate to the press thanking them for being "cooperative" instead of answering any questions? [IMG]http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/hillary_clinton_0.jpg?itok=pI_HGcyW[/IMG][/QUOTE] [t]http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/hillary_clinton_0.jpg?itok=pI_HGcyW[/t][t]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/twtjebkms5hvjr0wiinh.jpg[/t] I think these are both the best images to come out of this election.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51025959]Pretty sure various sites also found that at this conference (or maybe the last one) she was wearing a concealed headphone...[/QUOTE] Yeah, sites like Breitbart and Infowars.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025892]Is it the one where she offers chocolate to the press thanking them for being "cooperative" instead of answering any questions? [IMG]http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/hillary_clinton_0.jpg?itok=pI_HGcyW[/IMG][/QUOTE] It is 2016 and candy is segregated by color.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51025962]Easy to say when that specific news outlet has clear ties with the Hillary campaign, even so the "ban" was already lifted so your point doesn't even hold up[/QUOTE] Do you really think the president should be saying "Nah, I won't talk to you, you guys weren't nice to me in your last article"?

It's honestly a smart thing to do on her part, because if she goes into an actual press conference setting then reporters aren't going to be tossing her softballs like shes used too. The last thing she wants right now is people questioning her on her inability to handle sensitive data, [URL="http://images05.military.com/media/news/people/hillary-clinton-parade.jpg"]faux military servicemen[/URL] shes posed with, along with a multitude of other shit. She's not like Trump where she can just blame it all on Mexicans or democrats.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51026090]Do you really think the president should be saying "Nah, I won't talk to you, you guys weren't nice to me in your last article"?[/QUOTE] I don't see a problem with it, Hillary wouldn't interview with Breitbart or someone else who is heavily bias against her.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51026231]I don't see a problem with it, Hillary wouldn't interview with Breitbart or someone else who is heavily bias against her.[/QUOTE] Not sitting down to an interview with the Washington Post is one thing, not giving them the same press privileges you give others based purely on how you were treated in an article is quite another. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] You obviously can't host a conference and invite literally every dime a dozen new media e-tabloid around so you prioritize, I get that. I'm not saying Trump has to sit down and do interviews with BuzzFeed or Salon or HuffPo. The thing is Trump specifically stopped actual journalists from attending press conferences because he didn't like the coverage they put out.

I just came here to say fuck hillary. Fucking snake ass biiiitch. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shit Posting" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51026192]It's honestly a smart thing to do on her part, because if she goes into an actual press conference setting then reporters aren't going to be tossing her softballs like shes used too. The last thing she wants right now is people questioning her on her inability to handle sensitive data, [URL="http://images05.military.com/media/news/people/hillary-clinton-parade.jpg"]faux military servicemen[/URL] shes posed with, along with a multitude of other shit. She's not like Trump where she can just blame it all on Mexicans or democrats.[/QUOTE] That guy actually did end up being a retired Navy man. [url]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-memorial-day-actor/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51026231]I don't see a problem with it, Hillary wouldn't interview with Breitbart or someone else who is heavily bias against her.[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference between not doing one on one interviews with a media outlet, and literally blacklisting them from events, as Trump was doing until this week. Reporters from Breitbart were free to follow Clinton around and cover her events, even after the man running it was put in charge of Trump's campaign. Trump, however, entirely banned a number of outlets, including the Washington Post, of Watergate fame, from his events by revoking their press credentials.

[QUOTE=Warriorx4;51026281]That guy actually did end up being a retired Navy man. [url]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-memorial-day-actor/[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Flores is not an actor, nor is he a shill. He is a retired member of the United States Navy, who appeared at a parade — as he does every year — alongside his high-profile employer in order to honor those who lost their lives serving in the military. [/QUOTE] On a scale from 1 to "Photoshopping a dead man into the robes of the KKK" this rates about a 6 on the "Absolutely abhorrent measures to mislead people about Hillary Clinton" measurement system.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51026085]It is 2016 and candy is segregated by color.[/QUOTE] as it should, nobody wants them dark chocolates to mix with the white chocolates, they could reach a hand over and get a fist of both when they're only expecting one, its a disaster waiting to happen [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51026311]On a scale from 1 to "Photoshopping a dead man into the robes of the KKK" this rates about a 6 on the "Absolutely abhorrent measures to mislead people about Hillary Clinton" measurement system.[/QUOTE] its about as bad as the video of her having a siezure that is just a loop of her sneezing over and over again complete with looping audio and backwards walking people

[QUOTE=Warriorx4;51026281]That guy actually did end up being a retired Navy man. [url]http://www.snopes.com/clinton-memorial-day-actor/[/url][/QUOTE] I wasn't aware of this, thanks. I guess the guy must have been in a rush to get out the door that morning. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51026238]Not sitting down to an interview with the Washington Post is one thing, not giving them the same press privileges you give others based purely on how you were treated in an article is quite another. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] You obviously can't host a conference and invite literally every dime a dozen new media e-tabloid around so you prioritize, I get that. I'm not saying Trump has to sit down and do interviews with BuzzFeed or Salon or HuffPo. The thing is Trump specifically stopped actual journalists from attending press conferences because he didn't like the coverage they put out.[/QUOTE] Is it any better than allowing literally no media at all? They're equally awful in my mind. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51026311]On a scale from 1 to "Photoshopping a dead man into the robes of the KKK" this rates about a 6 on the "Absolutely abhorrent measures to mislead people about Hillary Clinton" measurement system.[/QUOTE] It's not really a misleading measure, a lot of people in the military were just pissed about it because the guy looked like an actor since his uniform was messed up. People posing as members of the military tends to get people irrationally up in arms.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51026431] It's not really a misleading measure, a lot of people in the military were just pissed about it because the guy looked like an actor since his uniform was messed up. People posing as members of the military tends to get people irrationally up in arms.[/QUOTE] People got mad, and accused her of some fucking heinous shit instead of asking questions or thinking about it yeah, it was intentionally a misleading measure by those that hate Clinton

I love how every thread about hillary always ends up being a discussion about trump.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51025985]Which specific outlet? All of the ones he prevented from coming to his press conferences? My point absolutely holds up when you link a conference that happened before the ban was lifted, check your dates next time. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] Various sites also report that Clinton is a cold, shrewd political operator capable of precision assassination missions that leave zero trace as well as manipulating local, state, and federal authorities to keep her immune from prosecution, as well as simultaneously a walking corpse who is constantly on deaths door and suffers from nearly every malignancy that medicine has thus far been able to diagnose.[/QUOTE] To be fair, a lot of that isn't all that far from the truth

[QUOTE=TheTalon;51026744]To be fair, a lot of that isn't all that far from the truth[/QUOTE] Raidyr's M.O. is to pretend there's nothing wrong with Clinton by refuting the worst of Breitbart's comment forums as though it somehow invalidates every legitimate complaint about her as well.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51026431] Is it any better than allowing literally no media at all? They're equally awful in my mind.[/QUOTE] What do you mean "allowing literally no media at all". The article in the OP said that two informal conferences (they call them gaggles for some reason?) happened on the plane. Clinton isn't "allowing literally no media" at her press conferences, she just doesn't have press conferences. But she still talks to the media. That's why I find her way better on a moral scale. I explicitly said if she didn't talk to the media at all that wouldn't be a good sign, but you also have to admit that would hurt her as well, where as Trump just creates a hugbox to avoid hardball. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51026431]It's not really a misleading measure, a lot of people in the military were just pissed about it because the guy looked like an actor since his uniform was messed up. People posing as members of the military tends to get people irrationally up in arms.[/QUOTE] A lot of people in the military weren't pissed off about the guy. Moving on from that, he wasn't posing as a member of the military and people who got irrationally up in arms were wrong, and driven by the people doing the misleading, specifically you. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheTalon;51026744]To be fair, a lot of that isn't all that far from the truth[/QUOTE] To be fair, you have offered absolutely nothing to convince me of this. [QUOTE=srobins;51026747]Raidyr's M.O. is to pretend there's nothing wrong with Clinton by refuting the worst of Breitbart's comment forums as though it somehow invalidates every legitimate complaint about her as well.[/QUOTE] There are things wrong with Clinton, it's just that a lot of people also tell blatant lies about her or her campaign and I really don't have patience for people lying to me, even over an anonymous message board. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] I don't even go to Breitbart so I don't even know what that's about, I just reply to quotes I find on FP where some people say some dumb shit about this election.