SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Source: The Intercept
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:04AM
Trump doesn't have the political clout to get his bullshit through congress, Hillary does. Who's scarier again?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:57AM
> Trump doesn't have the political clout to get his bullshit through congress,
You are a fool if you think Trump is the risk. Its the other way around. He doesn't have the strength of character or attention span to stand up to the onslaught of lobbyists pulling the strings on their pet congresscritters. He'll go along with whatever crazy-ass shit they are selling just as long as he gets to sign the laws with gold ink.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:49AM
This is exactly the case. Remember the last incompetent fool we had for a president (Dubya, in case you forgot)? He sure as shit didn't do anything, but Cheney and everybody else sure ran the country into the ground with that idiot as their puppet. Expect an even worse repeat if we get an even bigger idiot in the white house.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:58AM
That Cheney-esque covert take-over seems to be Peter Thiel's motivation [medium.com] for endorsing Trump. He's hoping to become the "shadow" president.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:59PM
During Dubya's term, he and Cheney had a very agreeable Congress. I don't think the same will necessarily be true here. And Pence doesn't seem to be as awful as Cheney, though I could be wrong.
It seems to me that we really need to elect Trump/Pence, and then pack Congress with partisan Democrats. Then nothing will get done, but that's better than the alternative.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:20AM
Um, yeah, that's what I just said.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:33PM
I'm not so sure about that. In my estimation, this guy appears to be just one twitter-rant away from starting WWIII...and he will have his finger on the nuclear button! If he becomes President, I don't think I will be sleeping well for the next four years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:45AM
you dont need congress to fuck the nato treaty, like trump already started doing; you dobt need congress ro invade countries; you dont need congress to tell the attorney general to prosecute all brown people for whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:40AM
you dobt need congress ro invade countries;
And you don't need to read to read the constitution, because spelling is, like, for losers! And stuff! Make A'mericca Grate Agan! Let's take back Germany for Germans! Deutschland uber alles! Lebensraum! Zeig . . . Um, what did I just say?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:19AM
You do if you want the money to pay for any of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:29AM
Yes, I don't get these people.
If two people are incompetent, reckless, criminal, soulless, evil: vote for the one who has no friends, has no one who 'owes' him favours... the one who has no power!
Voting for the criminal that everyone is afraid of and who owns them is just (to be PC) the 'R' word. (Damn, even the FBI is afraid of her)
Vote for the lame duck who will be stymied at every turn and will be able to do no harm!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:41PM
This makes a great deal of sense.
However, if things don't pan out that way, it's horrifying how bad things could get with a president egging on the alt-right. There's also the supreme court to consider. The SJWs have gone too far, and the backlash will be powerful. Just like the SJWs, the anti-SJWs also always miss the target. On the other hand, maybe that would open a path to move to Germany as a refugee!
Frankly, I guess I don't give a damn as long as cannabis stays legal where it currently is legal. That means my candidates are Johnson, Stein, and Clinton. Trump is right out, not because of anything he's done or not done, but because of the assholes he gives legitimacy to. I wish the anti-SJW fuckers would at least give me time to exorcise a financial vampire that's gotten ahold of me so I can just fucking move already.