A couple thoughts.

I listen to the radio a lot while driving to and from work due to the fact that it only has a cassette player and I haven't owned a tape in years, so I am bombarded with pro and anti measure 97 ads, you know, the measure that is supposed to "force big corporations to pay their fair share", I am in favor of it if that matters or comes as a surprise to anyone, what I am noticing is how much I agree with some of the arguments the anti side has, but I don't see them as a negative, they describe the tax as a "tax on sales" I don't care, tax their sales, du eet. They call it "The biggest tax hike in Oregon's history", and I just wonder why this is a bad thing, I mean, governments need money, those guys aren't paying a lot of it, hike their fuckin' taxes already, hell raise my taxes too, I'll get it all back at the end of the year, and if I don't that means I am making a living wage for once, so that is something to celebrate. Then they play the "don't trust the government" card by suggesting that the politicians can use the money for anything. To which I reply "yes, and?" We aren't talking the federal government here, it isn't like they can decide to go bomb Iraq with the cash, at worst they will spend it on public works and programs that might not strictly be necessary, but really, unless they are just enacting a policy of "set all the money on fire to warm the homeless" most government programs are actually pretty necessary, and even the homeless money fire option would at least provide some benefit, I mean sure it'd be better if they just put the money into shelters, housing, and rehab or vocational programs, but at least somebody would be warm even so.
Like, is it the end of the world if the money goes to maintaining parks or roads rather than schools? It's aggravating sure but we also need those things, screw it, go nuts and tax Comcast, they overcharged me often enough.

I have similar issues with complaints about the Clinton campaign, Wikileaks, who I will not link here, keeps posting stuff from the DNC hacked emails and so on that purports to show how the DNC colluded with Clinton, or that the media is doing the same, or they are saying weird things about minority groups, but when you get down to it they pretty much all boil down to campaign people doing competent, and entirely legal/not shady at all, campaign things.
When a reporter writes an article about a public figure, they usually try to get in contact with that figure for a comment, when a campaign discusses how to spend their money and advertise to a demographic, that isn't being weird unless they are filled with racial slurs or something, that is just what you do.

Likewise the current talk about how the "media and political elites" are rigging the election for Clinton, this is idiotic in the extreme, see, it isn't rigging when people report on things you do, or when the opposition party works to keep you from winning an election, that is actually exactly how things are supposed to work, and I would suggest that if you are finding everyone turning on you, it isn't because of a grand conspiracy, it is because you spend every waking moment insulting them and promising to do illegal things to them if you win. How is it a conspiracy for relatively sane people to choose to not support a manifestly crazy person?

Anyway, that's all i got today, just thought it was interesting the things some think are negative,