False equivalent ..., hacking elections et hacking debates...LMAO

[pbmus]

“Why aren’t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time? That’s a pretty valid attempt to influence an election," incoming press secretary Sean Spicer said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/312361-spicer-questions-if-clinton-should-be-punished-for-receiving

----------

where do they get these people..

[MattP]

1. He got more debate questions from Ailes than she got

[Blanks]

2. Trump didn't address the questions anyway...

What difference does it make to them who got questions in advance?

He just talked about whatever he wanted to talk about regardless of the question.

[Garrett78]

4. I've never seen one candidate so thoroughly dominate the other in every single debate.

Trump's utter lack of substance *should* have made him unviable, yet he got more than 60 million votes. It's surreal.

[Blanks]

7. It is...

And I read Facebook posts from back in my hometown. They think they've elected Santa Clause. "We will see soon enough just how wonderful it's going to be", they tell me.

Geez, make it stop.

[Garrett78]

3. And I suppose the media will go along with the false equivalency.

Must disregard critical thinking. Must stir up controversy and avoid "liberal media" tag.

Must obsess over spectacle and promote false equivalencies out of some twisted sense of what constitutes "balance."

Still the best article I've read yet related to the media's coverage of the 2016 campaign: http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-cruel-crooked-caricature-doomed-clinton-520125.

[pbmus]

5. Thanks...

[triron]

6. tragic comedy to make such a ludicrous comparison

but MSM may try