Hillary Clinton holds a press conference - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51025937]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] Frankly, that sounds like six of one and a half dozen of the other. I'm not impressed with either candidate's handling of the press. Neither is willing to engage the public except in venues they tightly control and surrounded by people that will throw softball questions. [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] Hold up, Raidyr's PM'd me wanting to know more about some of my vitriolic comments against Clinton, and we've had a level-headed discussion about it- he's not here to incessantly shill, don't make assumptions about other people. He's right to refute the batshit insanity; and just because he doesn't address every more grounded criticism doesn't mean he pretends they don't exist.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51026814]Hold up, Raidyr's PM'd me wanting to know more about some of my vitriolic comments against Clinton, and we've had a level-headed discussion about it- he's not here to incessantly shill, don't make assumptions about other people. He's right to refute the batshit insanity; and just because he doesn't address every more grounded criticism doesn't mean he pretends they don't exist.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say he's here specifically to incessantly shill, but his continual defense and downplaying of the DNC conspiracy to undermine Sanders completely disgusts me. There's nothing wrong with refuting batshit insanity, but bringing it up as a strawman argument in unrelated conversations to make legitimate criticism look petty by association is what bothers me. Most of all I'm annoyed by the constant deflection by bringing up Trump and saying "yeah! but look how much worse [I]he[/I] is!", as though Trump's parade of pure evil somehow makes Clinton's behavior any more acceptable. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] Regarding PM's, I pretty much gave up when he specifically told me to PM if we wanted to continue a conversation and he just ignored what I sent. I don't know if maybe Facepunch failed to deliver the PM since the sent box is broken, but I haven't had any very enlightening conversations with him.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51026814]Frankly, that sounds like six of one and a half dozen of the other. I'm not impressed with either candidate's handling of the press. Neither is willing to engage the public except in venues they tightly control and surrounded by people that will throw softball questions. [/QUOTE] Yeah I think both of them like a controlled and safe environment, the difference in my eyes is that Clinton is willing to forgo that sort of environment entirely where as Trump goes out of his way to adjust things to his liking. Honestly I hadn't noticed Trumps last press conference was in July though. [QUOTE=catbarf;51026814] Hold up, Raidyr's PM'd me wanting to know more about some of my vitriolic comments against Clinton, and we've had a level-headed discussion about it- he's not here to incessantly shill, don't make assumptions about other people. He's right to refute the batshit insanity; and just because he doesn't address every more grounded criticism doesn't mean he pretends they don't exist.[/QUOTE] I have addressed her weaknesses in my eyes a couple times. RIPBILLYMAYS and I reached a similar concensus regarding the Democrats energy plan ignoring nuclear and championing green power of questionable suitability. I've criticized Obamas and Clinton’s approach to foreign policy and defense. I feel like her healthcare plans are somewhat vague. And while it might not have been a crime, the investigation involving her private server does put me off her ability to keep secret information safe. The problem is these aspects of her are drowned out by the most bizarre claims and conspiracies.

Trump is just so bad that it really is always going to be about him, more so than Clinton. Raidyr seems soft on Clinton because of how ardent he is against Trump.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51026908]Trump is just so bad that it really is always going to be about him, more so than Clinton. Raidyr seems soft on Clinton because of how ardent he is against Trump.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree. Virtually everyone aside from a few notable Trump supporters are already aware of how bad Trump is. Every single Clinton criticism devolving into an argument about who is worse only serves to water down criticism of Clinton and prop her up as a respectable candidate out of necessity for at least [I]one[/I] of them to be decent. I would much prefer people just acknowledge both are terrible and that Clinton is preferable rather than trying to pretend Clinton is a candidate that genuinely deserves support for any reason other than keeping Trump out.

[QUOTE=srobins;51026875]I wouldn't say he's here specifically to incessantly shill, but his continual defense and downplaying of the DNC conspiracy to undermine Sanders completely disgusts me. [/QUOTE] Because despite asking several people across several weeks I've yet to be convinced that it was a very effective conspiracy. As far as I could tell it was a handful of emails from mid-level staffers discussing ways to hurt Sanders in some states and we don't even know how much of their conversation got into the real world ground game. Obviously I still don't think that is right or fair but evidence the claim that the primary was rigged or predetermined or that fraud occured has yet to be seen. I'm not so much defending a conspiracy so much as sayingthat it simply doesn't align with the heinous charges people lie at DWS/Clinton/the DNCs feet [QUOTE=srobins;51026875]There's nothing wrong with refuting batshit insanity, but bringing it up as a strawman argument in unrelated conversations to make legitimate criticism look petty by association is what bothers me. Most of all I'm annoyed by the constant deflection by bringing up Trump and saying "yeah! but look how much worse [I]he[/I] is!", as though Trump's parade of pure evil somehow makes Clinton's behavior any more acceptable. [/QUOTE] No bullshit, I usually don't do this but I did it in this thread for two reasons 1) because I was curious about sam za's standards for being friendly with press given Trumps shenanigans. He has made posts in support of Trump and against Clinton so I tlasked what I thought was a relevant question. 2) i thought the picture was funny. Maybe it reflects badly on Clinton but the idea of distracting reporters with candy is amusingly novel. [QUOTE=srobins;51026875] Regarding PM's, I pretty much gave up when he specifically told me to PM if we wanted to continue a conversation and he just ignored what I sent. I don't know if maybe Facepunch failed to deliver the PM since the sent box is broken, but I haven't had any very enlightening conversations with him.[/QUOTE] I have no pm's from you in my inbox so I dunno. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51026908]Trump is just so bad that it really is always going to be about him, more so than Clinton. Raidyr seems soft on Clinton because of how ardent he is against Trump.[/QUOTE] Ive been much more critical of Johnson and libertarianism in the past but frankly at this point i would take him over Trump. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;51026925]I completely disagree. Virtually everyone aside from a few notable Trump supporters are already aware of how bad Trump is. Every single Clinton criticism devolving into an argument about who is worse only serves to water down criticism of Clinton and prop her up as a respectable candidate out of necessity for at least [I]one[/I] of them to be decent. I would much prefer people just acknowledge both are terrible and that Clinton is preferable rather than trying to pretend Clinton is a candidate that genuinely deserves support for any reason other than keeping Trump out.[/QUOTE] Seems to me that we agree in broad strokes but disagree in exactly how terrible Clinton is, primarily over a topic that has quite tenuous links to her campaign. There are aspects of a Clinton presidency I like but the primary reason I will vote for her is to keep Trump out.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51026757]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] [quote]Clinton told reporters she was “happy” to have them on her plane with her. Some members of the media laughed, given the 275-day standoff during which the candidate had not held a press conference with them. “No, really,” she insisted.[/quote] She went 275 days without a press conference dood, thats, as I said, literally no media at all being allowed to talk to her on their terms. The whole point of this article is about how she had these recent press conferences breaking her 9 months of not having had a formal press conference. So, like I said, Trump only allowing journalists who are on his side and Hillary allowing no journalists are the same thing in my book. They're equally bad. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51026942] Seems to me that we agree in broad strokes but disagree in exactly how terrible Clinton is, primarily over a topic that has quite tenuous links to her campaign. There are aspects of a Clinton presidency I like but the primary reason I will vote for her is to keep Trump out.[/QUOTE] I'll end up doing exactly the same thing, but voting for one piece of shit to keep the other out is pretty terrible reason to vote in the first place.

[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] Sounds like you're thinking of the "commander in chief" forum. This was complete bullshit, just a heads up. [url]http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/[/url] You guys really need to hit Snopes up more often when you hear anything about Hillary. Approx. 80% of the shit being passed around the Internet about her is made up. Drivel created by Trumps hardline support of alt-right memesters on /pol/.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51028104] I'll end up doing exactly the same thing, but voting for one piece of shit to keep the other out is pretty terrible reason to vote in the first place.[/QUOTE] I voted Sanders and Republicans lost their fuckin minds and voted Trump. I didn't pick this election, take your righteous indignation elsewhere.

Tbh i dont look at it as who's more of a shitty candidate. I look at it in terms of who will fuck up everyones lives (including my own) the least.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51028293]Sounds like you're thinking of the "commander in chief" forum. This was complete bullshit, just a heads up. [url]http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/[/url] You guys really need to hit Snopes up more often when you hear anything about Hillary. Approx. 80% of the shit being passed around the Internet about her is made up. Drivel created by Trumps hardline support of alt-right memesters on /pol/.[/QUOTE] Snopes isn't as reliable as used to be, I'll turn to it occasionally now but I've seen postings of theirs that were actually lies about both candidates.

[QUOTE=Swilly;51028559]Snopes isn't as reliable as used to be, I'll turn to it occasionally now but I've seen postings of theirs that were actually lies about both candidates.[/QUOTE] It's a shitload more reliable than "i saw it in a meme once" tbh. Nobody is a perfect researcher, it's incredibly easy to be mislead even if you are trying your hardest. But at least their researchers put more effort in than "milo said it so it's true right?".

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51026882]And while it might not have been a crime, the investigation involving her private server does put me off her ability to keep secret information safe. [/QUOTE] As much shit as I talk about Clinton, I really wish people wouldn't bring this up so much. Because every time someone brings up "Hillary Clinton's email server", the first thing I think of is this: [t]https://patrickspokemonpalace.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ie8.png[/t] There's a LOT of things I can say about Clinton that are all kinds of nasty, but "Grandma can't computers" isn't really notable.

[QUOTE=Swilly;51028559]Snopes isn't as reliable as used to be, I'll turn to it occasionally now but I've seen postings of theirs that were actually lies about both candidates.[/QUOTE] Really though what is the threshold for convincing evidence when most of the claims here (including the ear piece one) was just a post with no pictures, sources, or anything else?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51028607]Really though what is the threshold for convincing evidence when most of the claims here (including the ear piece one) was just a post with no pictures, sources, or anything else?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they're not reliable, but like anything I'd rather we avoid using just singular sources. That's what leads to people like Fucknut the Milotit to get so popular.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51028550]I voted Sanders and Republicans lost their fuckin minds and voted Trump. I didn't pick this election, take your righteous indignation elsewhere.[/QUOTE] I would have voted Sanders if I could have bud, my state didnt hold a primary. And Im not blaminf you either, Im just saying this election is garbage, so throw your persecution complex out the door.

[QUOTE=lavacano;51028585]There's a LOT of things I can say about Clinton that are all kinds of nasty, but "Grandma can't computers" isn't really notable.[/QUOTE] Anyone that tries to excuse the email scandal with "grandma can't computers" is either dense or lying to themselves. You don't have to be an expert hacker, PhD in Computer Science to understand that [I]going out of your way to evade established security protocols is a bad thing.[/I] You want to know what computer illiterate people do when provided a system? [I]They use the fucking system.[/I] They don't have their own server established and configured in place of the one they already have. Not to mention the issue has nothing to do with her computer literacy, and everything to do with her judgement and character. Even if you think computers are powered by magic or invented by aliens, anyone at her security clearance is well aware that cyber security is a big issue and that official protocols are put in place specifically to keep data secure. Her decision to purposefully circumvent these protocols and establish her own server are an indication that she either values her own comfort or her ability to evade official surveillance over the integrity and security of her data. "Grandma can't computers" my ass. [editline]11th September 2016[/editline] Does "he can't computer" apply to everyone that compromises secure information by intentionally bypassing security protocols? Or does it only apply to Clinton because she's an old woman (who happens to be the wife of the ex-POTUS, and incredibly wealthy and powerful)? I'd love to see some poor schmuck in the military that got busted for mishandling classified data try and use "I don't understand computers :(" as an excuse for their behavior.

[QUOTE=srobins;51031638]Anyone that tries to excuse the email scandal with "grandma can't computers" is either dense or lying to themselves. You don't have to be an expert hacker, PhD in Computer Science to understand that [I]going out of your way to evade established security protocols is a bad thing.[/I] You want to know what computer illiterate people do when provided a system? [I]They use the fucking system.[/I] They don't have their own server established and configured in place of the one they already have. Not to mention the issue has nothing to do with her computer literacy, and everything to do with her judgement and character. Even if you think computers are powered by magic or invented by aliens, anyone at her security clearance is well aware that cyber security is a big issue and that official protocols are put in place specifically to keep data secure. Her decision to purposefully circumvent these protocols and establish her own server are an indication that she either values her own comfort or her ability to evade official surveillance over the integrity and security of her data. "Grandma can't computers" my ass. [editline]11th September 2016[/editline] Does "he can't computer" apply to everyone that compromises secure information by intentionally bypassing security protocols? Or does it only apply to Clinton because she's an old woman (who happens to be the wife of the ex-POTUS, and incredibly wealthy and powerful)? I'd love to see some poor schmuck in the military that got busted for mishandling classified data try and use "I don't understand computers :(" as an excuse for their behavior.[/QUOTE] Well bill clinton could help her to manage the USA as the president..