Did the MSM/corporations in the US meddle in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Hillary

[Maximus Zeebra]

I'm of the opinion that the mainstream media and very powerful and influential corporations in the US coordinated a meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in an attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.

I'm not talking about some, I am talking about a coordinated effort from 90% of relevant large media in the US, and maybe 70% of top internet and social media companies in the US who meddled in the election to get Hillary Clinton elected. And if so, how dangerous are these to the future of the "democratic process" in the US?

 

[Cardinal]

If the media and the corporations meddled in favor of Clinton then they were all incompetent or started drinking regularly at 9am.

 

[Crovax]

I'm of the opinion that the mainstream media and very powerful and influential corporations in the US coordinated a meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in an attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.

I'm not talking about some, I am talking about a coordinated effort from 90% of relevant large media in the US, and maybe 70% of top internet and social media companies in the US who meddled in the election to get Hillary Clinton elected. And if so, how dangerous are these to the future of the "democratic process" in the US?

If 90% of the media coordinated to help Hillary get elected and failed then they arent very dangerous. Of course there is 0% chance that happened. Every media source is out for them selves to gain as large of an audience they can there is no way they would give that up as a part to try to influence an election

 

[Crovax]

If the media and the corporations meddled in favor of Clinton then they were all incompetent or started drinking regularly at 9am.

Theres no need to denigrate the national pastime of Texas

 

[LouC]

I'm of the opinion that the mainstream media and very powerful and influential corporations in the US coordinated a meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in an attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.

I'm not talking about some, I am talking about a coordinated effort from 90% of relevant large media in the US, and maybe 70% of top internet and social media companies in the US who meddled in the election to get Hillary Clinton elected. And if so, how dangerous are these to the future of the "democratic process" in the US?

Name names and cite examples of their coordinated effort.

I look forward to your response!

Thanks!

 

[americanwoman]

I'm of the opinion that the mainstream media and very powerful and influential corporations in the US coordinated a meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in an attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.

I'm not talking about some, I am talking about a coordinated effort from 90% of relevant large media in the US, and maybe 70% of top internet and social media companies in the US who meddled in the election to get Hillary Clinton elected. And if so, how dangerous are these to the future of the "democratic process" in the US?

Well hello there - it's been awhile since I have seen you around. :2wave:

Anyways I don't think that they were all meddling, do you have some sources on this other than your opinion?

 

[LouC]

Theres no need to denigrate the national pastime of Texas

No.

I must respectfully disagree.

I lived in that State for 13 years.

The drinking thing is not the national pastime of Texas, it is close, but not quite there, what is there would be Native Texans perpetually engaging in unqualified braggadocio.

 

[Mycroft]

If the media and the corporations meddled in favor of Clinton then they were all incompetent or started drinking regularly at 9am.

Hillary did the drinking.

The media and the corporations weren't incompetent. Trump was just better.

 

[Cardinal]

Hillary did the drinking.

The media and the corporations weren't incompetent. Trump was just better.

Thank you for your garbage opinions.

 

[LouC]

If nothing else the OP should define "meddle".

Otherwise I can't answer the Poll!

 

[Crovax]

No.

I must respectfully disagree.

I lived in that State for 13 years.

The drinking thing is not the national pastime of Texas, it is close, but not quite there

Thats ridiculous I will drink you under the table before 9am any day of the week and twice on Sunday

what is there would be Native Texans perpetually engaging in unqualified braggadocio.

...Well I guess you got me there

 

[Mycroft]

Thank you for your garbage opinions.

The truth is inconvenient, isn't it?

LOL!!

 

[Cardinal]

T-

tl;dr

 

[LouC]

Hillary did the drinking.

The media and the corporations weren't incompetent. Trump was just better.

LOL

Obese Donald just proved that the worst choice for president ever was able to convince an adequate number of the worst electors ever, but in just the right places, to vote for him, thus insuring an Electoral College victory.

Of course the Russian help didn't hurt either.

 

[LouC]

The truth is inconvenient, isn't it?

LOL!!

LOL is right!

Thus saith the supporter of the Trump administration, in regards "the truth". Spoken of an administration who proudly promotes "alternative facts" and has a senior Presidential attorney who famously stated "the truth isn't the truth" while that President being documented to have thousands of patently false, mistaken, and outright intentionally spoken or posted lies in less than three years of his term!

Lord have mercy, no Obese Donald supporter should even begin to spout off about "the truth".

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Well hello there - it's been awhile since I have seen you around. :2wave:

Anyways I don't think that they were all meddling, do you have some sources on this other than your opinion?

Well, howdy there.

No, just from what I've seen, and heard and read. All the info I have points me in that direction and it seems quite certain to me that it was like that. Collusion/meddling msm/corporations etc & Hillary/democrats. Even some old republicans/conservatives like George Bush support Hillary. It seems likely to me that the warmongering neo-cons actually mostly supported/support Hillary.

When all clues clearly point in the same direction, I'm inclined to believe it to be likely or true.

 

[Carjosse]

Of course they did, it is completely legal for them to do so because of Citizens United and it is extremely dangerous to democracy.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

If the media and the corporations meddled in favor of Clinton then they were all incompetent or started drinking regularly at 9am.

Well, I'd say Donald Trump won despite the meddling, and that the majority of people don't take the BS.

If 90% of the media coordinated to help Hillary get elected and failed then they arent very dangerous. Of course there is 0% chance that happened. Every media source is out for them selves to gain as large of an audience they can there is no way they would give that up as a part to try to influence an election

Well, or they made fools of themselves or underestimated people? It doesn't make them "not very dangerous", if they are in fact coordinated, that's very dangerous in itself. And post-election there has been much talk about political censorship in the US, and undermining certain types of opinions. So it's clear to me that they are quite dangerous.

If you look at a previous thread of mine here, about political correctness and such things, I would say it is the same media and same companies who have made alot of people believe some really insane things, without any possible reason to actually believe those things based on rationality, logics or facts. Any organisation or coordinated group who are able to make so many people believe in such preposterous and outrageous lies, is indeed a huge danger in my eyes.

 

[Superfly]

Well, howdy there.

No, just from what I've seen, and heard and read. All the info I have points me in that direction and it seems quite certain to me that it was like that. Collusion/meddling msm/corporations etc & Hillary/democrats. Even some old republicans/conservatives like George Bush support Hillary. It seems likely to me that the warmongering neo-cons actually mostly supported/support Hillary.

When all clues clearly point in the same direction, I'm inclined to believe it to be likely or true.

You know, some supported Hillary just because they were so dead-set against Trump.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Name names and cite examples of their coordinated effort.

I look forward to your response!

Thanks!

CNN, MSNBC, Hollywood, Twitter, Facebook, Google, just to mention a very few examples.

Thank you for your garbage opinions.

That's not really a good way to communicate Sir. What your country need is proper communication and mending, not further divisions.

If nothing else the OP should define "meddle".

Otherwise I can't answer the Poll!

Collude..

Or, perhaps you know what projection is? What "they" are saying about Russia and Trump, was exactly the things THEY themselves were actually doing. So if you want to know more specifics, dig up a list about the Trump/Russia conspiracy theories and apply the same stuff to Hillary and the media and corporations etc.. +++

 

[Felis Leo]

Of course they did, it is completely legal for them to do so because of Citizens United and it is extremely dangerous to democracy.

Well, I would say it is perfectly legal for news media organizations to advocate and inter-meddle for any political candidate they so choose and the case law allowing them to do so stretched back long before Citizens United.

 

[Kobie]

Well, I'd say Donald Trump won despite the meddling, and that the majority of people don't take the BS.



Well, or they made fools of themselves or underestimated people? It doesn't make them "not very dangerous", if they are in fact coordinated, that's very dangerous in itself. And post-election there has been much talk about political censorship in the US, and undermining certain types of opinions. So it's clear to me that they are quite dangerous.

If you look at a previous thread of mine here, about political correctness and such things, I would say it is the same media and same companies who have made alot of people believe some really insane things, without any possible reason to actually believe those things based on rationality, logics or facts. Any organisation or coordinated group who are able to make so many people believe in such preposterous and outrageous lies, is indeed a huge danger in my eyes.

And what were these “preposterous and outrageous lies” did the institutions you listed sell that were intended to help Hillary and/or hurt Trump?

 

[Journeyman]

When all clues clearly point in the same direction, I'm inclined to believe it to be likely or true.

This is a good standard if your clues are right. For instance, I use that standard to believe that the Trump Campaign coordinated with Russian Intelligence to influence the election. I've got multiple convictions for lying about it, recusals, and an ever changing story about meetings between the campaign and Russians. At this point I think they are up to a claim that "talking to Russian agents about selling Alaska back isn't really a crime, and even if it is, it was so long ago that no one really cares, MAGA."

Most of that comes from actual statements made and court documents. I've seen with my own eyes Trump lie about possible campaign finance violations. What do you have that so strongly convinces you, and are you making the claim that any of it is illegal? If George Bush, George Soros, and Jeff Bezos get in a room and say, "Let's work together to elect Clinton," (which I doubt happened), is that in any way illegal? Taking benefits from a foreign government and conducting private foreign diplomacy is illegal, but I'm not sure that groups of US citizens deciding to work for someone's election is illegal. At least, it didn't used to be.

 

[Journeyman]

And what were these “preposterous and outrageous lies” did the institutions you listed sell that were intended to help Hillary and/or hurt Trump?

They denied him airtime. He couldn't get coverage from the media, and thus couldn't get his message out. I mean, months would go by and you wouldn't hear a thing about what trump was doing.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

And what were these “preposterous and outrageous lies” did the institutions you listed sell that were intended to help Hillary and/or hurt Trump?

I said the same media that has made people believe preposterous things.. And also outrageous lies. Like there not being 2 genders or similar things like that. Or the Russian conspiracy theory.

The institutions sold a bad image and propaganda of Trump, they sold a good image and propaganda on Hillary, and they sold a bunch of lies.