The election was nearly a year ago, why would they still be reporting on her? She lost, get over it etc.

How is that even a story in US politics though. Of course on the plus side, they at least bought a dossier of information, rather than just making up a lot of s**t and saying it.

Of course the president spent months claiming he was going to have Clinton locked up for crimes - and yet not even an investigation or charges.

And as a story, it didn't do them any good did it. She's not the president of the US, its not a story of note. Trump is. Its not really news.

Not really on a par - given it was a deal that went through all legal channels, and involved 9 different state departments etc. Plus, its an allegation that has been 'resurrected' by the Republicans. Plus, this has all come up before, without the republicans issuing an investigation, whilst he was in office.

I don't really understand how anyone can not be anti-Trump - The bloke is a car crash of a president, who hasn't managed to pass key legislation, even with a senate majority and he just continues to court controversy and disrepute to the office of the United States.

Even his own White House staff aren't loyal to him.

Sure, there is a bias, there is always a bias about news reporting on the president of the US. You didn't hear much about what GW Bush is up to once Obama came into office - But you certainly saw the bias in the Right against Obama in reporting.

Hilary and Obama aren't major news - Its ALWAYs the guy sitting in the oval office.

And what a great job he is doing....

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I don't think he necessarily understands what he's saying.

[quote=johnfirewall;3258774
Of the ridiculous things he says, many aren't that ridiculous if you're not out to demonise.

They're incoherent, the man can barely speak in full sentence.

I don't think he necessarily understands what he's saying.

[quote=johnfirewall;3258774
Of the ridiculous things he says, many aren't that ridiculous if you're not out to demonise.

They're incoherent, the man can barely speak in full sentence.

[quote=johnfirewall;3258774
In the depressing context of a 2 horse race, which US and UK elections invariably are, there'd have been much more pro-Clinton rather than anti-Trump sentiment over here while in the States they accepted it wasn't a great decision to have to make.

Now this I agree with, and its why there is a need for democracies to have more parties and more diversity of power basis, than a binary choice.

However that doesn't dismiss the fact that he's now the president, and should be exposed to the full media spot light (a media he himself picked a stupid and unnecessary fight with).

Of course they're bias, there is only one president - all the news is about him. Stories about the also rans, thrown up by the opposition aren't really public interest - No one cares about Clinton or Obama in the same way, because they're 'yesterday's men'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Why is is news? Because the FBI are investigating, and a number of trumps own people have had to resign after statements they made about having no relationships with Russia, turned out to be untrue.

How corrupt is the Clinton Foundation - probably as corrupt as most of these things, maybe more - But the profile of the story isn't the same as a sitting president - Who is topical news.

They should be held accountable - Don't get me wrong - If a probe shows criminal, negligent or corrupt activity - they should be tried. But the Republican party have been down this same road before, and nothing came of it.

But don't pretend that its the same profile as the sitting president. Where was all your criticism of the Right Wing media in the US giving weight to countless false conspiracies about Obama when he was in office.

You know, and I know, that the Republicans are in a damage limitation mode with Trump. Their probes fit their agenda, which presumably is surviving with a the world greatest political liability, as their sitting president. If the probes establish something concrete this time around, then the FBI should investigate.

Like they did with Hilaries email server (which isn't a likely offence carrying prison time either).

I think the Clintons are a corrupt as they come, and fixated on creating a political dynasty. Would she have been a better choice for president, probably, but only on the basis of being more competent...

I feel for the US, that their options are effectively a choice between corrupt, egotist elitist. But they probably have chosen the one who was at least competent.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well, actually what you have described is that the story contains a half truth.

So it's just the usual hyperbolic partisan analysis built up around it.

Both parties do it and nobody really interested in reasonable interpretations takes partisanship too seriously.

It's something when you start trusting Wikileaks more.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Oct 2017 2.28pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Why are you using the BBC Youtube page? I wasn't even aware that it existed but the BBC do not produce video content for every story they cover.

The story is on the news website here: [Link]

Optimistic as ever

So, the Russia dossier, started life as opposition research by a Republican opponent of Trump in the primary, and was dropped when Trump won the nomination. A Democratic fund raiser picked up the ball and ran with it. Why is this a big deal?

So far, while investigating the claims in the dossier, the FBI has failed to debunk anything but has actually confirmed quite a great deal of what is in there. This is not surprising as they have gone for the low hanging fruit first, so it remains to be seen what else will prove out or be debunked.

Meanwhile, Trump Jr. took a meeting with Russian spies on the promise of receiving "dirt" on Clinton. The Trump campaign's defense of this: "Who wouldn't?" Exactly. Why is it scream-from-the-rooftops bad that the Clinton campaign wanted a dossier on Trump but it's no big deal that Trump's campaign wanted the same on Clinton?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You could easily argue that neither are big deals. My point is, why does the BBC cover one story and not the other?

Jeff Flake has been unpopular in his base for years and was never going to win re-election (that wasn't mentioned in the BBC clip) so decided to quit and blame Trump for it. Good move by him, it fooled everyone who follows MSM!

Corker and McCain both hate Trump. But Trump should keep his mouth shut and not respond to their criticism, but he can't help himself. Meanwhile, the media lap it up and fuel it. Trump needs to back-slap people to make deals and pass legislation - not blast them. He's supposed to be a deal maker.

There are different fractions within the Republican party and has been for a while. They need to focus on policy instead of backbiting. But they can't even agree on how to fix Obamacare so I wouldn't hold out much hope.

The uranium never left the US. They didn't "sell it to Russia" - the inference being that Russia took physical possession of 20% of the US' uranium - the Canadian company who owned the US company who had rights to the uranium was bought by a Russian entity.

So, if you want to follow the logic of the conspiracy theory, Canada sold 20% of the US' uranium to Russia. Blame Canada!!

Clinton had no involvement in the deal and had no ability to veto it. The only reason it was put on her was because she was the presumptive and then actual Democratic Party nominee.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.