The biased Media vs Trump!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

History has shown us, and continues to show us, that the Democratic Party is the real party of racism.

Amerika wrote: »

Last I heard, since 1865 we were one nation.

cant make this up.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Reagan grew the size of the federal government.
Reagan actually increased taxation.
Racism is not the same issue as violence, so even if your personal views of what's ruthless or sinister had any real value, they don't really relate to the issue of racism. One party is advocating a ticket headed by a man who has objectively communicated racist views, and the other party advocates a candidate without any such baggage. Sometimes the thing that walks and talks like a duck, is indeed a duck.

It was under Bush that most of the rich got off easily. The same Bush family that spoke about further tax reductions in this election cycle. Trump is been talking on and on about making the gvt a lot more efficient at what it does. Trump would shrink the gvt and by doing so decreasing the debt that the gvt owes to foreign creditors. In turn this would free up extra spending. Everyone wins including the Democrats who want to spend like no tomorrow. They'll have to wait their chance before getting into the hot seat.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was under Bush that most of the rich got off easily. The same Bush family that spoke about further tax reductions in this election cycle. Trump is been talking on and on about making the gvt a lot more efficient at what it does. Trump would shrink the gvt and by doing so decreasing the debt that the gvt owes to foreign creditors. In turn this would free up extra spending. Everyone wins including the Democrats who want to spend like no tomorrow. They'll have to wait their chance before getting into the hot seat.

So he's going to

- make government smaller,
- so he can decrease the debt,
- so we can spend more

Hmm, how can he do all of this while wildly increasing the size of our military? you can't even really buy the planes we need for under $100mil these days. Been in that plant too. Lots of bells and ****.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-promises-huge-boost-in-military-spending/

It also fails to address where $6.5T just off an disappeared to.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was under Bush that most of the rich got off easily. The same Bush family that spoke about further tax reductions in this election cycle. Trump is been talking on and on about making the gvt a lot more efficient at what it does. Trump would shrink the gvt and by doing so decreasing the debt that the gvt owes to foreign creditors. In turn this would free up extra spending. Everyone wins including the Democrats who want to spend like no tomorrow. They'll have to wait their chance before getting into the hot seat.

Trump has proposed reduced taxes and increased spending. Never once in his entire campaign has he proposed a policy that would enable a reduction in the debt.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

So he's going to

- make government smaller,
- so he can decrease the debt,
- so we can spend more

Hmm, how can he do all of this while wildly increasing the size of our military? you can't even really buy the planes we need for under $100mil these days. Been in that plant too. Lots of bells and ****.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-promises-huge-boost-in-military-spending/

It also fails to address where $6.5T just off an disappeared to.

No he wants to decrease the debt. He wants less gvt. That is not what the Democrats want. I'd take it he would want the private sector to invest in the country however what is good for the country is to reduce the debt so that the gvt can spend if they need too. The Democrats have no problem increasing the debt regardless of the economy although that is beginning to change.

Everyone is clear the US debt is way to high. Well almost everyone cares about that.

Overheal

I don't understand. How is he going to reduce the debt, reduce the size of government, increase the size of the military (which is part of the federal government and its functions) deport 11 million illegal immigrants "so fast it will make your head spin", cut taxes, and cut spending?

I'm REALLY interested in the math.

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

cant make this up.

You can when you shriek like a certain cartoon frog and stick your fingers in your ears when anyone brings up the Southern Strategy.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

I don't understand. How is he going to reduce the debt, reduce the size of government, increase the size of the military (which is part of the federal government and its functions) deport 11 million illegal immigrants "so fast it will make your head spin", cut taxes, and cut spending?

I'm REALLY interested in the math.

The government does not need to be doing a lot of what it is currently doing. Trump considers a lot of the military projects a waste of taxpayers money. We have had years of Republicans, Libertarians talking about scrapping departments and none of these efforts have worked. The IRS, SEC & Obamacare.

Are any of these areas of the gvt of any value if you look at the data and see the results over the years. Madoff escaped justice for decades. Dozens of Congress members have been charged with graft & perjury over the years. The FBI which is a security agency has handled most of the problem areas in America over the years not Washington.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The government does not need to be doing a lot of what it is currently doing. Trump considers a lot of the military projects a waste of taxpayers money.

Which projects, exactly? Because all I've heard is a call to increase and expand. Can you be specific?

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Which projects, exactly? Because all I've heard is a call to increase and expand. Can you be specific?

I don't follow all the news, reports and other chatter about Trump and his party but a crucial factor in his growing popularity is his willingness to adopt a more fiscally conservative approach in all areas of American spending and that includes the military. I am familiar with one program to be specific which required US gvt provided weapons to organizations in Mexico. Operation Fast & Furious.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't follow all the news, reports and other chatter about Trump and his party but a crucial factor in his growing popularity is his willingness to adopt a more fiscally conservative approach in all areas of American spending and that includes the military. I am familiar with one program to be specific which required US gvt provided weapons to organizations in Mexico. Operation Fast & Furious.

So no word on the F-35, the next gen refeuling bird, next gen bomber program, DOD's classified space plane/guided missile, aircraft carriers, retiring our 4th generation air fleet, any plans to reform the VA, R&D, the global hawk, the abrams, the drone programs, nuclear armament renovations, submarine programs, amphibious vessels, - I could go on for 20 minutes here just off the top of my head.

There do have to be cuts, but where? Don't believe - or repeat - that the guy says he will do something when he himself has no apparent clue how he's going to do it. Look up the Rolls Royce F136, just one project that makes up the military industrial complex: established as a secondary engine source for the F35 with the original intent of actually keeping engine costs down ('Merica! Free market! etc) and ended up doing pretty much not that, in fact it was costing so much vs. the gain that both the bush and obama administration tried many times to kill it, but congress kept holding on to it.

Or, look at the USS Gerald R Ford, originally meant to be America's next, bestest, greatestest fighting piece of floating sovereign soil. Except that its over 2 years behind schedule, still isn't combat capable (and the problems its having sound like big, big delays still ahead), originally it was budgeted to cost about $10bn, its so far costing $13bn, plus $5bn in R&D. Every day the new carrier is delayed costs overtime for the rest of the fleet, which is of no point of contention running under it's design strength due in part to these delays. Similarly, the SSBN - our next gen submarine program, will also, most assuredly, run wildly over time and cost projections, just the same way the bomber, tanker, and 6th gen fighter program will. That's right. We haven't even recovered from - or completed delivery on - the F35 fiasco but the military timetable calls for a 6th gen fighter by about 2030. All of these programs are contracted on by companies that lobby at every level, and make sure your senator knows they will lose votes if they kill a project - because John McCain flip flopping on hating the F35 got him a whole wing of them stationed in Arizona, creating jobs in Arizona in the process.

In short, I don't trust any of these two candidates to slash the size of the military, but of the two candidates I'm more worried about one of them carelessly ****ing it up by throwing more money and demands at it. Neither will be particularly afraid to use it, but one already knows how to do so, so there's that.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

So no word on the F-35, the next gen refeuling bird, next gen bomber program, DOD's classified space plane/guided missile, aircraft carriers, retiring our 4th generation air fleet, any plans to reform the VA, R&D, the global hawk, the abrams, the drone programs, nuclear armament renovations, submarine programs, amphibious vessels, - I could go on for 20 minutes here just off the top of my head.

There do have to be cuts, but where? Don't believe - or repeat - that the guy says he will do something when he himself has no apparent clue how he's going to do it. Look up the Rolls Royce F136, just one project that makes up the military industrial complex: established as a secondary engine source for the F35 with the original intent of actually keeping engine costs down ('Merica! Free market! etc) and ended up doing pretty much not that, in fact it was costing so much vs. the gain that both the bush and obama administration tried many times to kill it, but congress kept holding on to it.

Or, look at the USS Gerald R Ford, originally meant to be America's next, bestest, greatestest fighting piece of floating sovereign soil. Except that its over 2 years behind schedule, still isn't combat capable (and the problems its having sound like big, big delays still ahead), originally it was budgeted to cost about $10bn, its so far costing $13bn, plus $5bn in R&D. Every day the new carrier is delayed costs overtime for the rest of the fleet, which is of no point of contention running under it's design strength due in part to these delays. Similarly, the SSBN - our next gen submarine program, will also, most assuredly, run wildly over time and cost projections, just the same way the bomber, tanker, and 6th gen fighter program will. That's right. We haven't even recovered from - or completed delivery on - the F35 fiasco but the military timetable calls for a 6th gen fighter by about 2030. All of these programs are contracted on by companies that lobby at every level, and make sure your senator knows they will lose votes if they kill a project - because John McCain flip flopping on hating the F35 got him a whole wing of them stationed in Arizona, creating jobs in Arizona in the process.

In short, I don't trust any of these two candidates to slash the size of the military, but of the two candidates I'm more worried about one of them carelessly ****ing it up by throwing more money and demands at it. Neither will be particularly afraid to use it, but one already knows how to do so, so there's that.

All I can say to that spiel is that Trump is for America first and not for overseas military pacts. The US war machine has been bombing Vietnam, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Cambodia & Yugoslavia for decades causing untold damage to the world.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All I can say to that spiel is that Trump is for America first and not for overseas military pacts. The US war machine has been bombing Vietnam, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Cambodia & Yugoslavia for decades causing untold damage to the world.

All you can say is the same vague, vacuous nonsense your candidate of choice says. I suppose it is a bit much to expect you to detail what it is Trump proposes since he won't even do it himself.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

All you can say is the same vague, vacuous nonsense your candidate of choice says. I suppose it is a bit much to expect you to detail what it is Trump proposes since he won't even do it himself.

I have to laugh. I have been asked this type of question from members here numerous times… What will Trump do, What are Trump’s policies, What are Trump’s positions, etc. I always try to answer them. And when I do, I usually ask for those members to be so kind as to tell me what Hillary will do. NOBODY EVER ANSWERS ME.

I guess it really is better to give than to receive, eh?

Overheal

She'll likely continue Obama's policies. Which incidentally, seem to be everyone's policy: bomb ISIS



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/isis-chemical-weapons-plant/

I can understand why this unnerves people: hillary the email server running, filmmaker arrestin', "butcher of benghazi" :rolleyes: in charge of the military??

Same time, nobody questioned any embassy deaths that were all well documented prior to that. This was a chance to attack the DNC and they've clamped on and havent let go (the GOP). Deplorable things keep happening still, between the bush era helicopter attack that allegedly mistook a tripod for an RPG, and people offering first aid of the same incident as combatants, to the obama era bombing of a hospital and the gunning down of the evacuees, there have been some serious bipartisan **** ups to go all around. It comes down to whether you want aforementioned hillary, or the guy who up until recently had a deeper understanding of the copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand than he did the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction.

Amerika

OMG… A day that will live in infamy. Democrats are finally getting a small taste of what the media has been doing to Republicans for decades. And Liberals don’t rightly like it... Not one bit!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/295850-left-cries-double-standard-at-press-treatment-of-clinton

But not all the media is picking on poor Hillary. Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin fearlessly continues with his reporting of truth to power.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/14/hillary-collapse-coverage-reveals-absurdity-of-biased-media/

Overheal

Hardly earth shattering, the GOP got fantastic media coverage in the bush era. The first half anyway, when you were considered a ****ing commie if you didn't lick the Chiefs boots. Your patriotism was called into question. Etc

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I have to laugh. I have been asked this type of question from members here numerous times… What will Trump do, What are Trump’s policies, What are Trump’s positions, etc. I always try to answer them. And when I do, I usually ask for those members to be so kind as to tell me what Hillary will do. NOBODY EVER ANSWERS ME.

I've answered many times.

Supreme court appointees.

More obamacare. Obama only started the job.

Campaign finance reform. Gun control. Environmental protections. Minority rights.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I've answered many times.

Supreme court appointees.

More obamacare. Obama only started the job.

Campaign finance reform. Gun control. Environmental protections. Minority rights.

Thanks. The top issues on the voter’s minds are the economy, terrorism, jobs and healthcare. ObamaCare is crumbling before our very eyes and Hillary wants more? The other priorities of hers are worthless in addressing the main concerns of voters. God help us if she does become president.

And back to media bias... Trust in the media has fallen to a historic low in new Gallup poll. Yet the media remains clueless, or obstinate in their mission to destroy Trump… Take your pick.

intellectual dosser

David McWilliams showing complete bias against Trump, the shame.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks. The top issues on the voter’s minds are the economy, terrorism, jobs and healthcare.

jobs arent even on the list.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Overheal

intellectual dosser wrote: »

David McWilliams showing complete bias against Trump, the shame.

In an opinion piece???



That's what opinion pieces are. The problem is when its passed off as unbiased news/journalism.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

jobs arent even on the list.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Well, I am happy for you that in your extensive search you were able to find something that slightly differed from what I noted.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188918/democrats-republicans-agree-four-top-issues-campaign.aspx

Overheal

Then we are both right. Continuing.

intellectual dosser

Overheal wrote: »

In an opinion piece???

That's what opinion pieces are. The problem is when its passed off as unbiased news/journalism.

The sarcasm was obviously lost in my post...

Overheal

No complaints about the free press from Hannity: informal campaign advisor and certified boot licker for Trump

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-hannity-has-given-31m-in-free-media-to-donald-trump/

Amerika

RE: Basket Full Of Deplorables!


In Clinton’s case, the reaction led her to walk away from the truth: “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” she said in a statement over the weekend.

The only thing Clinton should have apologized for was her lowball estimate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/15/sorry-deplorables-being-called-racist-doesnt-mean-youre-being-oppressed/?utm_term=.735cc10f6a97

Chalk up yet another time honored member of the Fifth Estate who have now stripped off what was left of their integral modesty and joined Media Gone Wild bunch.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

RE: Basket Full Of Deplorables!


In Clinton’s case, the reaction led her to walk away from the truth: “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” she said in a statement over the weekend.

The only thing Clinton should have apologized for was her lowball estimate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/15/sorry-deplorables-being-called-racist-doesnt-mean-youre-being-oppressed/?utm_term=.735cc10f6a97

Chalk up yet another time honored member of the Fifth Estate who have now stripped off what was left of their integral modesty and joined Media Gone Wild bunch.

Again. This is an opinion piece. Not news. Do we need to clarify the difference again?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Again. This is an opinion piece. Not news. Do we need to clarify the difference again?

What you fail to do is understand that the media has blurred the lines between analysis and opinion.

As reported by the NY Times...

'The news pages are laced with columns, news analysis, criticism, reporter’s notebooks, memos, journals and appraisals — all forms that depart from the straightforward presentation of facts and carry the risk of blurring the line between news and opinion — a line that I believe is critical to the long-term credibility of any news organization.'

'(They) have long ago ventured far from the safe shores of keeping opinions only on the opinion pages.'

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

What you fail to do is understand that the media has blurred the lines between analysis and opinion.

I completely understand that. But as a well educated adult I can see the difference between an opinion piece and a news article almost instantly. It's not difficult. Opinion pieces are inherently biased. Just like your "fearless" hero Goodwin, all journalists are entitled to their opinions.

As reported by the NY Times...

'The news pages are laced with columns, news analysis, criticism, reporter’s notebooks, memos, journals and appraisals — all forms that depart from the straightforward presentation of facts and carry the risk of blurring the line between news and opinion — a line that I believe is critical to the long-term credibility of any news organization.'

'(They) have long ago ventured far from the safe shores of keeping opinions only on the opinion pages.'

The newspaper paradigm has shifted. So what? I read the Irish Times this morning, there was an opinion piece on yesterday's All Ireland final on the front page. Should I write a letter to the editor to complain that this should have been on the sports pages?

I do agree that there are far too many opinions pieces in most Newspapers I read. I want the news reported first and foremost. But this doesn't mean I think the new reporting is biased by the media, I just don't read all of the opinion.