SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the past two weeks, the Democratic presidential nominee has faced increased scrutiny from critics to take questions at a news conference — something she hasn't done in 273 days.
[...] New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg criticized Clinton for her aversion toward the press in a searing piece on Sunday, and CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter has not been shy when offering his opinion.
"She is acting in some ways as if she is already president," Stelter said in a recent CNN appearance. "By not acknowledging the importance of a press conference, the uniqueness of a press conference — it makes me wonder how accessible she'd be in the White House as president."
[...] The campaign, which did not return requests for comment for this story, frequently cites a figure that asserts Clinton has granted more than 350 interviews this year.
[...] Holly Shulman, a former spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, told Business Insider that technology has changed the way candidates run for office and suggested there was less of a need to lean on the press to disseminate a message.
"Campaigns have changed," she said, noting that candidates can now reach voters directly through social media. "[T]his type of direct engagement has a much bigger impact on voters' decisions."
[...] Trump has continued to spotlight Clinton's refusal to take questions from the media in an open setting.
In recent weeks, the New York businessman's campaign has sent out an email each morning reminding reporters exactly how many days it has been since "hiding Hillary" last held a press conference.
[...] Brian Fallon, the campaign's top spokesman, seemed to acknowledge the importance of one on Friday. He promised ABC News that if elected, "Hillary Clinton will hold press conferences."
Source: Business Insider
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday September 05 2016, @04:27AM
What Clinton brings to the table, along with all her baggage, is a vague approximation of competence. At the very least, nothing she's been in charge of has fouled up to anything close to the degree that things that Trump has been in charge of. Trump has a pattern of wrecking anything he's put in charge of that isn't a reality TV show, and government is not a reality TV show. Since I live in a swing state and am thus among the minority of voters that actually matter for a presidential election, that's enough for me to probably vote for her and then go home to vomit.
But I will never trust her, because she's shown far too many times that her and her people are not trustworthy. I mean, I don't really trust any politician, but I particularly don't trust a politician that's been exposed as consistently two-faced.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday September 05 2016, @07:02AM
What Clinton brings to the table, along with all her baggage, is a vague approximation of competence. At the very least, nothing she's been in charge of has fouled up to anything close to the degree that things that Trump has been in charge of.
People keep saying that Trump is incompetent, because four of his businesses went bankrupt. I'm not even in the USA, and I can smell the BS on that one.
Businesses don't always succeed, and if they fail, they often close down via bankrupcy. So I asked Google for a list of Trump's businesses: Here's the top link [qz.com].
If he has only had four business failures, compared to that list, I'd say he's pretty damned competent.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 05 2016, @12:05PM
It's not just the 4 bankruptcies.
It's also that his apparent successes are consistently steeped in:
- fraudulent representations to his customers
- ripping off his vendors
- taking short-term gains and then dumping the long-term consequences on somebody else
Penn Jillette, who worked with Trump on Celebrity Apprentice, had this to say: "However bad you think he is, he's worse."
Had he taken his inheritance and invested it in S&P 500 index funds, he would be at least twice as rich as he is now (it might be more than that, because he's carefully hiding his actual net worth right now and it's entirely possible he's nowhere near as wealthy as we think). In other words, he's managed to squander about 4-6 billion on putting his name on things.
Also, and I think this is important, he has no experience whatsoever in any government position whatsoever, and if elected would be the first president with that handicap. There are things you can't do as a president or governor or mayor or general that you can do as a CEO, and the management skills involved are thus very very different.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 05 2016, @01:10PM
I understand your points, but they are not criticisms of his competence. You are questioning his honesty and his ethics, which is fair enough, but a completely different discussion. As for investing in the S&P instead of running businesses - who wouldn't love to have perfect foresight for their investment and business efforts? Plus, that's speculation, since (as you also point out) no one actually knows what his net worth is.
The lack of governmental experience? This is the reason that so many people plan to vote for him. People who do have governmental experience are part of the ongoing corruption. Electing someone from outside that circle would seem to be the only hope for housecleaning.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 05 2016, @01:50PM
The point of his ethics issues are that really great business leaders don't have to rip people off in order to be successful. If Trump is the greatest business leader of our time (and that's basically his entire campaign pitch right there), then he shouldn't have to either.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @10:07PM
His son is bringing up a very good point.
What exactly do the Clintons sell? They are very rich. Yet do not really seem to sell anything tangible. We have a pretty good idea how the Trumps get their money. The Clintons seem to be influence peddlers.
Both types of people would make an interesting and effective president.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday September 05 2016, @10:58PM
So let me see if I follow your logic. You said Clinton is known to be foul but has at least a little experience and track record and Trump is incompetent.
Someone responded and pointed out that based on Trump's business track record he is actually quite successful compared to your average businessman. You then pivoted to him being dishonest and foul.... which is exactly what Clinton is..
I'm not trying to convince you as I have no dog in the fight and you seem to have made up your mind, but your line of rationalization seems to not reconcile here...
I can definitely understand if you said you'd rather have the devil you know than the one you don't. There's really nothing wrong with that, lots of people let fear drive their decision making, but trying to rationalize that reveals the cognitive dissonance.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday September 05 2016, @08:24PM
My problem with the "he would have done better investing" is what amount do you think he would find it acceptable living on? What are his yearly expenses on luxuries. Over 10 years that 5 billion is 500 million a year spent on whatever. What would his dividends be with it all locked up. What good is being a billionare if you can't live like one.
We all have that millionare homeless guy in our town that lives on a single cheeseburger each day and sleeps in a box, personally thats not my style and I doubt it would be yours either.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 06 2016, @12:45AM
$5 billion in today's dollars. Average return on investment of an S&P 500 index fund: 10%. That means $500 million a year in current dollars. Reinvest about $100 million to keep up with inflation. So you're now stuck spending only $400 million a year. $400 million a year amounts to a dozen mansions, a private jet, and a few hundred people to serve your every whim, as well as some minor spending money to indulge in any drugs, sexual acts, and other sleaze you might want to.
And I've never met a millionaire homeless guy. I suspect you haven't either: A millionaire with any sense can earn a comfortable investment income from the stock market, more than enough to pay for a middle-class lifestyle. There are quite a few that have done just that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @11:04AM
Email security? Benghazi? Libya? Syria?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday September 05 2016, @09:24PM
"At the very least, nothing she's been in charge of has fouled up to anything close to the degree that things that Trump has been in charge of."
She is the one who was lauded for brining China into the World Trade Organization as our Nation's top diplomat - which was great for the economy, right?
She is the one who lied to Congress repeatedly and destroyed incriminating evidence in an FBI investigation - do you honestly dispute this at this stage, where she has said she "was never trained in handling classified information" after signing her name on a form stating she explicitly understood the nature and gravity of classified information?
She is the one who threatened the Nation's security with her email server and careless behavior.
She is the one who was in charge of Benghazi.
I don't know what news stations you watch, but if you think that creating a for-profit school which had some disgruntled idiots drop-out of it, and having a handful of bankrupt companies among literally hundreds of profitiable ones which resulted in billions of dollars of personal profit is as bad as any of that, I recommend you ease up on the cognitive dissonance before you make the terrible mistake of voting for a pathological politician like Clinton.