Clinton hasn't held a press conference for 200 days - Polidicks

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton-hit-a-milestone-today-and-it-wasnt-a-good-one/[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton delivered a speech savaging Donald Trump's business acumen and economic plans in Ohio on Tuesday. It was just the sort of address we've come to expect from Clinton during her two presidential bids: deeply researched, well argued and strongly delivered. It also had one other thing that has become a much more disturbing pattern for Clinton the candidate: a total lack of real interaction with the media who cover her. In fact, today marks 200 days since Clinton has held a formal press conference of any sort. 200! The last time Clinton held a news conference, not a single vote had been cast in the Democratic primary contest. The idea of Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee was still greeted with (mostly) eye rolls and laughs. And the State Department inspector general's office hadn't issued a scathing report on Clinton's decision to exclusively use a private email server to conduct her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation's top diplomat.[/quote]

Keep in mind that this "total lack of real interaction" is on the part of the Clinton [I]campaign.[/I] Hillary herself and individual members of her staff frequently interview and provide off-the-cuff comments for radio and television news sources.

Congratulations, America, this is what not caring about the democratic process for a few decades looks like. Trump vs Clinton, with empty populist rhetoric on one side and corporate media support and federal criminal investigations on the other.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50561996]Congratulations, America, this is what not caring about the democratic process for a few decades looks like. Trump vs Clinton, with empty populist rhetoric on one side and corporate media support and federal criminal investigations on the other.[/QUOTE] the republic is old and rotten

This election is the worst for free press in a long long time. Clinton has not held a press conference in ages, like the article says. Donald Trump wants to open up libel laws and ban publications he does not like, and has started to do so for his campaign. But it's not just about the election: Obama has been the least press friendly and least transparent President since Nixon. The ultra rich are finding out that you can secretly bankroll lawsuits against publications until they go bankrupt. Whoever wins, we will continue to lose.

She's not going to hold a press conference because they will ask her about the emails and there is no way for her to answer that without making herself look bad and giving ammo to her opposition.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50561996]Congratulations, America, this is what not caring about the democratic process for a few decades looks like. Trump vs Clinton, with empty populist rhetoric on one side and corporate media support and federal criminal investigations on the other.[/QUOTE] To be fair, weren't some recent leaks basically affirming that Clinton was pushed onto people by the Democratic party itself? I'm not saying that complacency doesn't play a large part as well, but I can't imagine that their pre-determined goal of having it be Hilary's turn helped much.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;50562541]To be fair, weren't some recent leaks basically affirming that Clinton was pushed onto people by the Democratic party itself? I'm not saying that complacency doesn't play a large part as well, but I can't imagine that their pre-determined goal of having it be Hilary's turn helped much.[/QUOTE] We've known since 2008 that Hilary was going to be the Democratic candidate, since she stepped down against Obama for the nomination and, as we all know, she'd only do that if she was given a deal that [I]her turn[/I] would be after Obama.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50562535]She's not going to hold a press conference because they will ask her about the emails and there is no way for her to answer that without making herself look bad and giving ammo to her opposition.[/QUOTE] Then maybe she should have followed guidelines instead of flaunting the fact that she's above the law.

Same reason she didn't want to have as many debates. Every time she gets questioned on subjects she'd rather have her supporters forget about.

Yeah fom her perspective it's a smart move because it'll end up in questions regarding recent revelations and that might hurt her even more than staying shut-in from the free press.

I can't wait until the debates. No teleprompter to save her there.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50563078]I can't wait until the debates. No teleprompter to save her there.[/QUOTE] She's... already been to a few debates...

[QUOTE=orgornot;50563078]I can't wait until the debates. No teleprompter to save her there.[/QUOTE] Those debates Trump likely wont be able to attend because the dumb bastard hasn't raised any funds for his campaign in forever? You can't run a campaign off of hopes and dreams, you do need to pay the people who transport you and organise things for you. If he's paying out of his "own pocket" (read: any of his other LLCs), that needs declaring as a donation.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50563097]Those debates Trump likely wont be able to attend because the dumb bastard hasn't raised any funds for his campaign in forever? You can't run a campaign off of hopes and dreams, you do need to pay the people who transport you and organise things for you. If he's paying out of his "own pocket" (read: any of his other LLCs), that needs declaring as a donation.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't Trump be able to attend a presidential debate if he's the republican nominee? I don't see how the debates cost the candidates money.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50563078]I can't wait until the debates. No teleprompter to save her there.[/QUOTE] Considering the trend of Trump saying one retarded thing after another with no end in sight, she's not the one who needs saving.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50563090]She's... already been to a few debates...[/QUOTE] You know what I mean. [QUOTE=hexpunK;50563097]Those debates Trump likely wont be able to attend because the dumb bastard hasn't raised any funds for his campaign in forever? You can't run a campaign off of hopes and dreams, you do need to pay the people who transport you and organise things for you. If he's paying out of his "own pocket" (read: any of his other LLCs), that needs declaring as a donation.[/QUOTE] People were saying similar things during the Republican primaries, but look who won.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50563116]Why wouldn't Trump be able to attend a presidential debate if he's the republican nominee? I don't see how the debates cost the candidates money.[/QUOTE] Travel expenses, accommodation expenses, etc. If he's paying for it out of his own, personal capital then sure whatever. But if he's being a shifty fuck and using his companies to "loan" him the money needed, that needs to be declared as a donation for the sake of transparency.

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50563120]Considering the trend of Trump saying one retarded thing after another with no end in sight, she's not the one who needs saving.[/QUOTE] Trump fought against 16 established republicans, these were senators and governors, and he won every debate. Every poll had him winning every debate by a landslide.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50563143]Trump fought against 16 established republicans, these were senators and governors, and he won every debate. Every poll had him winning every debate by a landslide.[/QUOTE] 16 weakass candidates who all split the vote between them for the Republican electorate, not the general one. They're two different things, how much do you know about American politics other than hot /pol/ memes?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50563138]Travel expenses, accommodation expenses, etc. If he's paying for it out of his own, personal capital then sure whatever. But if he's being a shifty fuck and using his companies to "loan" him the money needed, that needs to be declared as a donation for the sake of transparency.[/QUOTE] I agree with you but I don't see how this would be a problem.

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50563163]16 weakass candidates who all split the vote between them for the Republican electorate, not the general one. They're two different things, how much do you know about American politics other than hot /pol/ memes?[/QUOTE] "16 weakass candidates" that are probably still better than Clinton lol [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] Trump spent this time snapping the necks of 16 candidates while Hillary was trying to scrape off 1

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50563225]"16 weakass candidates" that are probably still better than Clinton lol [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] Trump spent this time snapping the necks of 16 candidates while Hillary was trying to scrape off 1[/QUOTE] Name one candidate better than clinton.

Well shit, how much time do you have? :v: Edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_politicians[/url]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50561996]Congratulations, America, this is what not caring about the democratic process for a few decades looks like. Trump vs Clinton, with empty populist rhetoric on one side and corporate media support and federal criminal investigations on the other.[/QUOTE] Can you blame us when the politicians themselves tend to feel the same apathy towards us that we feel towards politics.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50563546]Can you blame us when the politicians themselves tend to feel the same apathy towards us that we feel towards politics.[/QUOTE] Given the definition of democracy, yes I can.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50563225]"16 weakass candidates" that are probably still better than Clinton lol [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] Trump spent this time snapping the necks of 16 candidates while Hillary was trying to scrape off 1[/QUOTE] What a dumb comparison. Putting aside the fact that all of those candidates still did worse than Clinton in polls except for one, the Republican and Democratic primary are two entirely different races. It speaks more to the strength of Sanders populism that he did so well compared to Hillary and not an indictment on her campaign. You also forgot O'Malley, which makes two. As for your "16" Republican candidates? 5 of them dropped out before the primaries even began. Of the remaining 11, half of those didn't break 1% in polls as of December 2015. Trump beat more candidates because the Republican field had more losers. How impressive. [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50563292]Name one candidate better than clinton.[/QUOTE] Kasich is the only one that comes even close. [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] You'd think the "Trump is going to crush Clinton in debates xD" meme would be dead by now considering Trump can't go two days without saying something to a reporter that pushes his polls down but I guess if your last, best hope is watching Trump sling mud at Clinton instead of defend his policies then that's all you got.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50563869]You'd think the "Trump is going to crush Clinton in debates xD" meme would be dead by now considering Trump can't go two days without saying something to a reporter that pushes his polls down but I guess if your last, best hope is watching Trump sling mud at Clinton instead of defend his policies then that's all you got.[/QUOTE] I thought that was part of his plan to desensitise people and make the media look bad by saying obscure things that make heads spin, but then it's later realised that he was so vague or broad that people either forget the whole thing or just go "Fuck the establishment, man!" and they pull to his side. So far that's what I've seen since they said he wouldn't make the nominee.

wondered how many general election debates there were going to be [url]http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/[/url] only 4, according to this website. It's shocking considering how many debates there have been for the primaries, and the fact that the primaries practically started in 2015. There's only 6 months left until the general election.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50564384]wondered how many general election debates there were going to be [url]http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/[/url] only 4, according to this website. It's shocking considering how many debates there have been for the primaries, and the fact that the primaries practically started in 2015. There's only 6 months left until the general election.[/QUOTE] 4 is the standard number, with one of those being a Vice Presidential debate between the candidates' running mates. And that's about right imo. In the primaries you've got - Anywhere up to more than a dozen candidates - Complete unknowns vs household names - States voting at different times, meaning you can focus on different regional issues with each debate - Candidates dropping out one-by-one, leaving their supporters to pick another candidate to vote for out of those left in the race For these reasons you might want to have a shitton of debates so that the unknown candidates can have a chance to make a name for themselves, and voters can figure out who all these people are and decide who to support out of those that are still running by the time their state votes. Whereas in the general you only have 1 election with 2 candidates (or 3 in very rare cases), and voters have heard of them by this point and probably have a decent idea of where they stand. In my opinion, to have a shitton of debates in the general would just end up eroding the significance of the debates and would risk voters getting sick of watching them. I know over here with the EU referendum, we've had like a million TV debates and I've barely watched any of them because it's just the same shit over and over again. Ultimately when you're dealing with a relatively small and stable group of candidates, 3 or 4 debates should be ample time for them to set out their positions on the big issues and take potshots at one another.