2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

It is highly recommended that folks who believe that there is a "media bias against Trump" read Trump's 1987 book The Art of the Deal. If I recall the pages correctly (on about pages 56 or 57) Trump writes about how to manipulate the press by saying "outrageous" and sensationalist things, whereupon the press (media) flock to report his latest "outrageous" statements, providing him free media coverage, as well as keeping Trump before the national audience more than his other Republican or Democratic competitors. Trump has said "outrageous" things about Mexicans, Muslims, the Pope (pawn), "torture works," etc., etc., and the du jour "outrageous" statements about punching and roughing up protesters. Trump is brilliant when it comes to manipulating the media (press), and is following the advice he gives in his 1987 book, and is getting exactly what he wants from the so-called "media bias against Trump" (including playing the victim of the "media bias" quite well).

And the second that the media fails to cover Trump, he will say another "outrageous" thing to draw them immediately back to him. Just like Huey Long of Louisiana, Trump understands that "Good news is best news, bad news is 2nd best news (so-called media bias), and no news is bad news for a politician." If the media stopped reporting his "outrageous" statements, Trump would be dead in the water, and his competitors would catch him. So if he can keep the media focused upon him (including GOOD and BAD news, which are BOTH GOOD according to Huey Long and Trump in his 1987 book), he will win the Republican nomination and the 8 November 2016 presidential election.

The craic I've found in the 2016 presidential election is how Trump has brilliantly manipulated and controlled the media in content and context on a daily basis keeping him before the American people unlike any of the Republican or Democrat candidates, and having spent less than any other candidate through his expert manipulation resulting in free Trump airtime. Love or hate Trump, everyone is talking about him daily across the pond, and such talk drives up ratings and profits for the so-called "media bias" to where it's a win-win for Trump and the media. And the biggest craic of all occurs when his believers rush to defend Trump against the so-called "media bias," which Trump keeps churning with continued "outrageous" statements per his 1987 book. I would guess that most of the Trump believers have NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD the content of The Art of the Deal by Trump. If they did, they would see how the so-called "media bias" is being fostered by Trump on a daily basis to keep him in the public eye, which is a winning strategy.

Just because he courts negative media attention doesn't mean the media isn't biased against Trump. I honestly didn't read that wall of text.

All sections of the media, all they've talked about for the last 9 months is how to destroy him. If you don't think the media is biased, you're also biased.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Just because he courts negative media attention doesn't mean the media isn't biased against Trump. I honestly didn't read that wall of text.

All sections of the media, all they've talked about for the last 9 months is how to destroy him. If you don't think the media is biased, you're also biased.

Wall of text? Yes that differs from Trump's superficial and sensationalist sound bites, lacking any depth of analysis or empirical support.

I would guess that you did not read Trump's 1987 book The Art of the Deal, or if you did, you did not understand Trump's advice on how to manipulate and control the media (press) with outrageous and sensationalist statements, which, according to Trump in his book, is a winning combination towards making his deal (i.e., closing a business deal, or in like manner closing the GOP nomination and presidential election in his own self-interest today). It's word-for-word in his book about press manipulation, fostering and playing with the media bias to Trump's advantage, but it's doubtful that his apologists have ever read or understood what he had written in 1987. They unquestioningly "believe" in him, just like "believing" in a prophet discussed in Robert Bellah's "Civil Religion" applied to American politics.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Wall of text? Yes that differs from Trump's superficial and sensationalist sound bites, lacking any depth of analysis or empirical support.

I would guess that you did not read Trump's 1987 book The Art of the Deal, or if you did, you did not understand Trump's advice on how to manipulate and control the media (press) with outrageous and sensationalist statements, which, according to Trump in his book, is a winning combination towards making his deal (i.e., closing a business deal, or in like manner closing the GOP nomination and presidential election in his own self-interest today). It's word-for-word in his book about press manipulation, fostering and playing with the media bias to Trump's advantage, but it's doubtful that his apologists have ever read or understood what he had written in 1987. They unquestioningly "believe" in him, just like "believing" in a prophet discussed in Robert Bellah's "Civil Religion" applied to American politics.

I would guess that you didn't read my reply where I pointed out that courting negative press doesn't mean the media isn't biased as well. You're not saying anything new, the Art of the Deal has been pointed out on this thread numerous times. I know you want some kudos for the depth of research you think you've done but I suspect you haven't told any of us anything we didn't know already and as such we're not as impressed as you think we should be.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you don't think the media is biased, you're also biased.

Everyone is biased, EVERYONE, according to Max Weber in Economy and Society (1922). I agree with Weber, but I get the impression that some Trump believers feel that they are not like the media in terms of being terribly biased too on behalf of Trump, so much so that they will defend their "strongman," no matter what comes out of his mouth (e.g., "torture works").

walshyn93 wrote: »

I would guess that you didn't read my reply where I pointed out that courting negative press doesn't mean the media isn't biased as well. You're not saying anything new, the Art of the Deal has been pointed out on this thread numerous times. I know you want some kudos for the depth of research you think you've done but I suspect you haven't told any of us anything we didn't know already and as such we're not as impressed as you think we should be.

Yes, I have discussed this book before, as have others. You have your biased view, and I have mine, just like anyone else in this forum. I have no need to impress you, or anyone else, as I am on the web and anonymous: here today, and gone tomorrow. I will be forgotten, as will everyone here someday.

Rather, I find it a complete craic how anyone could defend or otherwise support Trump after the host of "outrageous" statements he has made to manipulate the press and its viewers. Everything is remarkably going according to Trump's 1987 plan, and his Republican and Democratic opponents are dumbfounded and completely clueless. I guess they did not read or understand his 1987 book either on how to create and use media bias to your own self-interest?

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Everyone is biased, EVERYONE, according to Max Weber in Economy and Society (1922). I agree with Weber, but I get the impression that some Trump believers feel that they are not like the media in terms of being terribly biased too on behalf of Trump, so much so that they will defend their "strongman," no matter what comes out of his mouth (e.g., "torture works").



Yes, I have discussed this book before, as have others. You have your biased view, and I have mine, just like anyone else in this forum. I have no need to impress you, or anyone else, as I am on the web and anonymous: here today, and gone tomorrow. I will be forgotten, as will everyone here someday.

Rather, I find it a complete craic how anyone could defend or otherwise support Trump after the host of "outrageous" statements he has made to manipulate the press and its viewers. Everything is remarkably going according to Trump's 1987 plan, and his Republican and Democratic opponents are dumbfounded and completely clueless. I guess they did not read or understand his 1987 book either on how to create and use media bias to your own self-interest?

Just as a recent example. A lunatic tried to storm on to Trump's stage. God knows what he'd have done to Trump if he had succeeded. CNN put him on national TV for a very softball interview giving him the fame he desperately craved. CNN puts out a message to every loon that a good way to get famous is to assault or otherwise try to harm Trump. That's not just biased, that's actively trying to get him assassinated in my book. There's not a chance in hell they'd have put him on if he had done that to Hillary or even Bernie. They're trying to send a message that Trump is fair game for whatever you want to throw at him. Saying "everyone's biased" doesn't excuse it.

When the media is taking the side of the violent thugs protesting Trump's rallies and blaming Trump for the actions of his opponents that goes beyond bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEuYox35My0

Amazingfun

walshyn93 wrote: »

Just because he courts negative media attention doesn't mean the media isn't biased against Trump. I honestly didn't read that wall of text.

All sections of the media, all they've talked about for the last 9 months is how to destroy him. If you don't think the media is biased, you're also biased.

The wall of text is suspiciously like Stefan Molyneux's most excellent video "The UNTRUTH about Trump" :

And the endless attacks by all THREE networks last night was a true sign of desperation. I hope Trump wins it all today!

Amazingfun

walshyn93 wrote: »

Just as a recent example. A lunatic tried to storm on to Trump's stage. God knows what he'd have done to Trump if he had succeeded. CNN put him on national TV for a very softball interview giving him the fame he desperately craved. CNN puts out a message to every loon that a good way to get famous is to assault or otherwise try to harm Trump. That's not just biased, that's actively trying to get him assassinated in my book. There's not a chance in hell they'd have put him on if he had done that to Hillary or even Bernie.

The creep is Tommy DiMassimo, actor and all round weirdo who appears to wish he was Black. You can see evidence of that on his Twitter: @younglionking7

Anyways, his aunt called into the Savage show yesterday: :pac::

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

The full answer is no different in meaning to the one in the video. The fact is, neither Bernie nor Trump can control the actions of their supporters, and Trump supporters aren't behaving like Brownshirts going in and breaking up Bernie's meetings. I don't think that Sanders is responsible even if he does court the support of radical leftist groups, but he his undeniably a hypocrite.

If you can't tell the difference between Trump's attitude towards protest, and Sanders', then you're really blinkered.


Sanders is non violent to a fault. He has given his stage over to protestors rather than throw them out. He has tried to engage with them and hear what their grievances are

Trump on the other hand consistently dehumanises them. 'These are not good people folks' He calls for them to be forcibly thrown out, he encourages rough treatment, he glorifies 'the good old days' when the protesters would be beaten up...

Trump is responsible for inciting hatred and inciting violence. He is a million miles away from Sanders and Clinton and every other candidate on this issue

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between Trump's attitude towards protest, and Sanders', then you're really blinkered.


Sanders is non violent to a fault. He has given his stage over to protestors rather than throw them out. He has tried to engage with them and hear what their grievances are

Trump on the other hand consistently dehumanises them. 'These are not good people folks' He calls for them to be forcibly thrown out, he encourages rough treatment, he glorifies 'the good old days' when the protesters would be beaten up...

Trump is responsible for inciting hatred and inciting violence. He is a million miles away from Sanders and Clinton and every other candidate on this issue

Trump has had to deal with thousands more protesters. Bernie so far as had maybe 2 or 3. It just doesn't compare. You would get pissed off too. And when he talks about hurting protesters there's considerably more nuance to it than you'd like to believe. He only talks about harming the ones who are throwing digs, there's been more of those lately. There are plenty of instances where a young person has been protesting and appears peaceful ad he's told his supporters and security to "be gentle".

Bernie knows his supporters are violent thugs and he has done nothing to quell their violence. If saying "I don't condone violence" was enough then Trump would be absolved already. Bernie is just more sneaky about his turning a blind eye to violence than Trump. He also has less of a need to deal with protesters because he has none. Bernie loves that his supporters are what he would call passionate and are willing to violently disrupt Trump's rallies. His public statements on the matter are as reliable as any politicians. The violent campaign will continue to be waged against Trump until Bernie and Hillary condemn it. So far they've blamed the victim.

The Chicago violence was not Trump's fault. It was the falt of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders. They're the ones who have given mainstream legitimacy and funding to the cop killing Black Lives Matter movement.

Trump has also held off on pressing charges against violent protesters until now. Now that he's threatening to press charges to bring an end to the chaos he is being accused of stifling free speech. I'm starting to think there's no consideration of what's right or wrong, legal or illegal any more. They just don't like Trump and will do anything to smear, harass and when it comes down to it, they will settle for getting him killed.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

Trump has had to deal with thousands more protesters. Bernie so far as had maybe 2 or 3. It just doesn't compare. You would get pissed off too. And when he talks about hurting protesters there's considerably more nuance to it than you'd like to believe. He only talks about harming the ones who are throwing digs, there's been more of those lately. There are plenty of instances where a young person has been protesting and appears peaceful ad he's told his supporters and security to "be gentle".

Bernie knows his supporters are violent thugs and he has done nothing to quell their violence. If saying "I don't condone violence" was enough then Trump would be absolved already. Bernie is just more sneaky about his turning a blind eye to violence than Trump. He also has less of a need to deal with protesters because he has none. Bernie loves that his supporters are what he would call passionate and are willing to violently disrupt Trump's rallies. His public statements on the matter are as reliable as any politicians. The violent campaign will continue to be waged against Trump until Bernie and Hillary condemn it. So far they've blamed the victim.

The Chicago violence was not Trump's fault. It was the falt of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders. They're the ones who have given mainstream legitimacy and funding to the cop killing Black Lives Matter movement.

Trump has also held off on pressing charges against violent protesters until now. Now that he's threatening to press charges to bring an end to the chaos he is being accused of stifling free speech. I'm starting to think there's no consideration of what's right or wrong, legal or illegal any more. They just don't like Trump and will do anything to smear, harass and when it comes down to it, they will settle for getting him killed.

Bullsh1t. Trump is claiming that the protesters who disrupt his rallies are being directed by Sanders. It's standard Trumpism, to attack his opponents and make claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

He is now calling protesters 'Bernies people' and 'These are not good people folks' and 'they need to get a job'. He's deliberately riling up his supporters to hate these protesters. It's incredibly irresponsible.

Trump caused the protests himself by the incendiary things he says, and rather than try to calm down his supporters, he is now encouraging them to invade Sanders rallies to further heighten tensions and inflame things.

A few days ago, Trump made the blatantly false claim that Bernie is directing his supporters, to invade Trump events, and directly implied that his own supporters should go and invade Sanders' events.

According to Mr Trump it is the other way about, however. “Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to me events,” he said on Sunday via Twitter. He then went on: “Be careful Bernie or my supporters will go to yours!”

“If conservative Republicans went into his rallies you see things that would be unbelievable,” the New York developer and former reality TV host told CNN later.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016-republican-party-democratic-party-a6928961.html

What kinds of things would we see that would be 'unbelievable?' The guy's a nutcase, a dangerous one.

The words and actions of Donald Trump is on a trajectory that almost guarantees someone gets killed, and then all hell breaks loose.

frostyjacks

The more I see these flagburning liberals rejoice in shutting down free speech and free assembly, the more I want Trump to win. They will only have themselves to blame if he does.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

Trump is going around saying he'll pay supporters legal bills if they attack protestors, no other candidate is.

Maybe you can try and spin that one.

Not true, one occasion, anyway it wasnt Trump who organised far left groups to get together to shut down his own rally, thats the issue here, not things Trump says. Its not honest dissent, its a media campaign and violent far left loons who are the issue here.

Colonialboy

frostyjacks wrote: »

The more I see these flagburning liberals rejoice in shutting down free speech and free assembly, the more I want Trump to win. They will only have themselves to blame if he does.

Yes the last 20-30 years is a litany of socio economic and political free speech being shutdown.
Go back to Reagan days and there was far more violence during rallys.
Americans had become very much like lemmings, if theres anger then its about time they showed it and expressed it. All that repressed anger just to conform cant be good for you.

Anyways Im off to celebrate Proclamation day today...violence who needs it .

Akrasia

frostyjacks wrote: »

The more I see these flagburning liberals rejoice in shutting down free speech and free assembly, the more I want Trump to win. They will only have themselves to blame if he does.

Has there been a single American flag burnt by any of the anti trump protesters?

Colonialboy

Akrasia wrote: »

Bullsh1t. Trump is claiming that the protesters who disrupt his rallies are being directed by Sanders. It's standard Trumpism, to attack his opponents and make claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

how much did Jeb Bush spend on attack ads again.. 20+million..
how much all told are the other candidates spending on negative attack Trump ads again.. north of 100 million
The other candidates have done nothing BUT attack Trump ...

anit-trump posters have tried to stick and blame Trump for everything
So Trumps to blame for his opponents attacking him,
Trumps to blame for isolated incidents breaking out in a rally with 10s of thousands,
Trumps to blame for media manipulation,
Trumps to blame for the migrant crisis
Trumps to blame for the US national debt,
Trumps to blame for wall street coporatism
Trumps to blame for Washington corruption and lobbying

Akrasia

Colonialboy wrote: »

how much did Jeb Bush spend on attack ads again.. 20+million..
how much all told are the other candidates spending on negative attack Trump ads again.. north of 100 million
The other candidates have done nothing BUT attack Trump ...

anit-trump posters have tried to stick and blame Trump for everything
So Trumps to blame for his opponents attacking him,
Trumps to blame for isolated incidents breaking out in a rally with 10s of thousands,
Trumps to blame for media manipulation,
Trumps to blame for the migrant crisis
Trumps to blame for the US national debt,
Trumps to blame for wall street coporatism
Trumps to blame for Washington corruption and lobbying

Trump is to blame for the tone of the campaign he has been running.

When you call for war crimes, and torture and mass deportations, and racial profiling, you can not go off and play victim when people protest your rallies.

Can you find a single instance where Sanders tells his supporters to go to Trump rallies and prevent him from speaking?

You can't because there isn't one. But that doesn't stop Trump from Lying about it, and then inciting his own supporters to shut down Sanders rallies.

LuckyLloyd

Overheal wrote: »

Donald Trump demonstrates the genius of a superdelegate system....

You either like democracy and the ballot box or you don't. If Sanders ends up winning a majority of voted delegates those super delegates better change their tune quick or risk presenting an open goal to a candidate like Trump or Cruz in the general.

LuckyLloyd

CNN providing a man who tried to assault a presidential candidate airtime is the most repugnant irresponsible journalism. I'm actually appalled at the media and the left over the last few days. Defeat Trump by running properly researched fact base demolitions of his stated policies; of his personal and business record and highlight the ridiculousness of what he says and how he behaves in a calm and rational manner. Celebrating the attempt to silence him at rallies is abhorrent and wrong. Moreover, it will confirm the sense of siege mentality to Trump's supporters - the sense that working class white America is under attack.

Bottom line though is that all violence or threats of same against political candidates needs to be condemned in the harshest and most unequivocal tones. This weekend has been an effective 'hey crazies - go after a candidate and get your 15 minutes' beacon. You'd like to think a country that suffered so many assassinations of key political figures in the last century would have learned its lesson.

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

CNN providing a man who tried to assault a presidential candidate airtime is the most repugnant irresponsible journalism. I'm actually appalled at the media and the left over the last few days. Defeat Trump by running properly researched fact base demolitions of his stated policies; of his personal and business record and highlight the ridiculousness of what he says and how he behaves in a calm and rational manner. Celebrating the attempt to silence him at rallies is abhorrent and wrong. Moreover, it will confirm the sense of siege mentality to Trump's supporters - the sense that working class white America is under attack.

Bottom line though is that all violence or threats of same against political candidates needs to be condemned in the harshest and most unequivocal tones. This weekend has been an effective 'hey crazies - go after a candidate and get your 15 minutes' beacon. You'd like to think a country that suffered so many assassinations of key political figures in the last century would have learned its lesson.

Maybe CNN wouldn't have interviewed him if Trump didn't say he was linked to ISIS. (another lie, but who's counting anymore)

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

If the military doesn't want to waterboard they won't. Trump loosening the laws on waterboarding won't force the military to do something they don't think is necessary.

Waterboarding is currently illegal. Allowing waterboarding would not be 'loosening' and laws on waterboarding, it would be changing them entirely.

It's not only inhumane, it's a terrible method for getting accurate information.

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

You're the one who's using spin here. I don't even know if you could call it spin, it's totally false actually. He said he would pay one person's legal bills, not everyone's. It happened to be a 78 year old man who punched a young lad for obnoxiously sticking a middle finger in his face and Trump sympathised with him. As do I. Hardly a carte blanche to all his supporters. If anything it just shows that Trump is generous to those who are loyal to him, which is something to be admired in a politician, not condemned.

Why do you lie about stuff like this? What do you actually get out of it?

Funny, you must have missed this.

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

Maybe CNN wouldn't have interviewed him if Trump didn't say he was linked to ISIS. (another lie, but who's counting anymore)

Park your whataboutery sir. He should never have been interviewed, bottom line and you know it.

I will be hoping the Democratic nominee wins the general election by the way, but some people are losing all sense of perspective here.

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Park your whataboutery sir. He should never have been interviewed, bottom line and you know it.

I will be hoping the Democratic nominee wins the general election by the way, but some people are losing all sense of perspective here.

Why shouldn't have he been interviewed?

Isn't it the media's job to report the news? We have a protester who rushed the stage. Trump and his supporters immediately claimed that he was a part of ISIS and his intention was to attack trump physically.

When CNN talked to the guy it became immediately obvious that he has nothing to do with Isis and had no intention of physically assaulting Trump.

You're outraged that the media would interview someone involved in a news story, but you don't seem to care that Trump would immediately accuse him of being a part of ISIS and stating publically that he should be in Jail?

Are you kidding me?

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

Trump has had to deal with thousands more protesters.

Funny how, by building a campaign around hatred and anger, he has wound up fostering hatred and anger. What are the odds of that!?

Bernie so far as had maybe 2 or 3.

Funny how, by building a campaign of constructive discussion and engaging with protesters, Sanders has wound up with constructive engagement with protesters that has not escalated.

It just doesn't compare.

You're right, it absolutely doesn't.

You would get pissed off too.

By someone saying there's a strong chance of me being a rapist because of where I was born, yes I would be.

And when he talks about hurting protesters there's considerably more nuance to it than you'd like to believe. He only talks about harming the ones who are throwing digs, there's been more of those lately.

There are plenty of instances where a young person has been protesting and appears peaceful ad he's told his supporters and security to "be gentle".

I must have missed these. Links please.

Bernie knows his supporters are violent thugs and he has done nothing to quell their violence.

You're confusing one mans protesters with another mans supporters, though from the nature of your posts in this thread you seem dead set on seeing everything through an 'us and them' perspective.

If saying "I don't condone violence" was enough then Trump would be absolved already.

Bernie is just more sneaky about his turning a blind eye to violence than Trump.

Aga

He also has less of a need to deal with protesters because he has none.

Funny how promoting open discussion and bipartisanship instead of vilifying minorities and taking a 'divide and conquer' approach to society can do that. The lack of self awareness from Trump supporters has gone from baffling to utterly hilarious.

Bernie loves that his supporters are what he would call passionate and are willing to violently disrupt Trump's rallies.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it pure projection on your part?

His public statements on the matter are as reliable as any politicians.

You keep saying things as if you want people to take them as fact, but offer nothing to back them up outside of whatever it is that's going on in that head of yours. Expand on your statements, and people will take you more seriously.

The violent campaign will continue to be waged against Trump until Bernie and Hillary condemn it. So far they've blamed the victim.

Meet Donald. Donald walks into a busy park. Donald then shouts abuse at groups of people in this busy park, calling them rapists and criminals. After this, Donald goes over to other people and starts telling them about these 'murdering rapists' until he finds some to get behind him. Then Donald and his new found friends go over and start shouting more abuse at these 'murdering rapists'.

The 'murdering rapists' have now had enough, get up and start shouting back. Donald tells his supporters he has them covered if there is a fight. The situation escalates into a fight. Police arrive and get things under control. Donald then says he and his cohorts should leave.

Once they had left, he blames his neighbour for what has just happened. His neighbour was at home the whole time, but surely must have hired those 'murdering rapists' to attack him and his cohorts. He has motivation, because Donald has been talking sh*t about him for a while. I mean, it couldn't have been anything else... like shouting endless abuse and racism at that group of people. But that couldn't be the case, because actions don't create reactions... even the dogs on the street know that.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Trump campaign!

The Chicago violence was not Trump's fault.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Trump campaign!

It was the falt of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Trump campaign!

They're the ones who have given mainstream legitimacy and funding to the cop killing Black Lives Matter movement.

Breitbart or Daily Beast?

Trump has also held off on pressing charges against violent protesters until now. Now that he's threatening to press charges to bring an end to the chaos he is being accused of stifling free speech.

What, by doing things like attacking those exercising it having been told by a billionaire that they will cover your legal fees?

I'm starting to think there's no consideration of what's right or wrong, legal or illegal any more.

You mean like publicly endorsing violence?

Here, just in case you missed it again...

They just don't like Trump and will do anything to smear, harass and when it comes down to it, they will settle for getting him killed.

Projecting again, eh? It's a common trait of a Trumpite. You guys really seem to really be getting quite irritable the last week or so.

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

Why shouldn't have he been interviewed?

Isn't it the media's job to report the news? We have a protester who rushed the stage. Trump and his supporters immediately claimed that he was a part of ISIS and his intention was to attack trump physically.

When CNN talked to the guy it became immediately obvious that he has nothing to do with Isis and had no intention of physically assaulting Trump.

You're outraged that the media would interview someone involved in a news story, but you don't seem to care that Trump would immediately accuse him of being a part of ISIS and stating publically that he should be in Jail?

Are you kidding me?

Because protesters rushing to physically assault politicians at public rallies need to be starved of oxygen that may propagate the idea in the minds of others of a similar bent that attempting such behaviour will provide them a media platform? It should be standard practice for the news to be reported in a responsible manner. We don't show streakers at sporting events for this reason. Given that the stakes are much higher here, it should be obvious that interviewing this cretin is not okay.

Trump stating he's in ISIS is standard Trump nonsense. Report that he said it; that you checked it; that it's incorrect by all means. Trump stating that the man should be in jail seems correct to me? Why is he not in jail? Rushing to tackle presidential candidate in public seems to be deserving of jail time in my mind.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not true, one occasion, anyway it wasnt Trump who organised far left groups to get together to shut down his own rally, thats the issue here, not things Trump says. Its not honest dissent, its a media campaign and violent far left loons who are the issue here.

They organised themselves, he just motivated and mobilised them.

And it is completely true. This is not the first time I have put this video up for you. Why is is that you insist on ignoring reality?

Billy86

Colonialboy wrote: »

how much did Jeb Bush spend on attack ads again.. 20+million..
how much all told are the other candidates spending on negative attack Trump ads again.. north of 100 million
The other candidates have done nothing BUT attack Trump ...

anit-trump posters have tried to stick and blame Trump for everything
So Trumps to blame for his opponents attacking him,

Are you new to politics?

Trumps to blame for isolated incidents breaking out in a rally with 10s of thousands,

And who are those tens of thousands listening to? Here's a hint...

Trumps to blame for media manipulation,

What, like manipulating to accuse Mexicans of generally being murdering, rapist criminals?

Trumps to blame for the migrant crisis

Remind me who said that, again?

Trumps to blame for the US national debt,

Remind me who said that, again?

Trumps to blame for wall street coporatism

Remind me who said that, again?

Trumps to blame for Washington corruption and lobbying

Remind me who said that, again?

Billy86

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Park your whataboutery sir. He should never have been interviewed, bottom line and you know it.

I will be hoping the Democratic nominee wins the general election by the way, but some people are losing all sense of perspective here.

His being interviewed is no different to the pseudo-terrorist Bundy group in Oregon quite recently. Both got national attention of social media, and from there the media are ignoring the public's demand to know more (as well as throwing away viewers and money, their primary concern if we're honest). Like it or lump it, that's why that guy got so much coverage just like the Bundy's, and Trump only fueled that with his allegations.

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because protesters rushing to physically assault politicians at public rallies need to be starved of oxygen that may propagate the idea in the minds of others of a similar bent that attempting such behaviour will provide them a media platform? It should be standard practice for the news to be reported in a responsible manner. We don't show streakers at sporting events for this reason. Given that the stakes are much higher here, it should be obvious that interviewing this cretin is not okay.

Trump stating he's in ISIS is standard Trump nonsense. Report that he said it; that you checked it; that it's incorrect by all means. Trump stating that the man should be in jail seems correct to me? Why is he not in jail? Rushing to tackle presidential candidate in public seems to be deserving of jail time in my mind.

I think Trump made the interview newsworthy by his baseless accusations that the protester was out to kill him and that he was a part of ISIS.

Trump stokes these things himself.

A free media would cover both sides of the story, not just the 'established truth'

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Trump is going around saying he'll pay supporters legal bills if they attack protestors, no other candidate is.

Maybe you can try and spin that one.

Trump sure has

I can't make this up

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wait-what-trump-i-never-said-i-would-pay-supporters-legal-fees/