6 ms·

Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe

Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean. It's amazing how quickly they blame Russia. Russia may be a shrewd international manipulator, but that doesn't mean that every time data come out on the Clintons, they're from some 400 pound dude in the Kremlin. Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.

PeterStuer 10y ago
"Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.". It is all a matter of timing releases for maximal impact or damage control, so yes, they hold back data until it is needed. Do you think the timing of the Trump sexist video release is coincidental and unrelated to these Clinton speech releases?
- douche 10y ago
  What I've seen of the Trump soundbites is pretty tame, if people are going to be honest and cut the hypocritical faux outrage. Moreover, it seems like an idiotic angle to play if it was orchestrated by Clinton's camp, given old Billy's escapades over the years.
krapp 10y ago
>Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her. Trump is a billionaire globalist, an elite among elites. He's been a celebrity for decades, embroiled in countless public scandals and lawsuits, and this isn't even his first Presidential run. His attack surface is as vast as his ego. > I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her. I think your apparent conflation of "all the dirt Wikileaks publishes" with "all the dirt we can find" is in error, or at least can't be substantiated. Perhaps some people are simply dismissing what "dirt" there is on Trump (there's plenty) as being smear tactics and lies manufactured by the "Clinton owned news media," and assuming the "dirt" on Clinton is far more damaging than it actually is? Or perhaps Trump and his supporters are simply more effective at propagandizing through social media than Clinton?

PeterStuer 10y ago

"Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.". It is all a matter of timing releases for maximal impact or damage control, so yes, they hold back data until it is needed. Do you think the timing of the Trump sexist video release is coincidental and unrelated to these Clinton speech releases?

douche 10y ago
What I've seen of the Trump soundbites is pretty tame, if people are going to be honest and cut the hypocritical faux outrage. Moreover, it seems like an idiotic angle to play if it was orchestrated by Clinton's camp, given old Billy's escapades over the years.

krapp 10y ago

>Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her. Trump is a billionaire globalist, an elite among elites. He's been a celebrity for decades, embroiled in countless public scandals and lawsuits, and this isn't even his first Presidential run. His attack surface is as vast as his ego. > I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her. I think your apparent conflation of "all the dirt Wikileaks publishes" with "all the dirt we can find" is in error, or at least can't be substantiated. Perhaps some people are simply dismissing what "dirt" there is on Trump (there's plenty) as being smear tactics and lies manufactured by the "Clinton owned news media," and assuming the "dirt" on Clinton is far more damaging than it actually is? Or perhaps Trump and his supporters are simply more effective at propagandizing through social media than Clinton?