Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The biased Media vs Trump!

Options
1…2021232526…51

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    I haven't seen much coverage of Trump support at rallies at all really, recently.

    Of course when Trump was offering to pay legal costs if a protestor was roughed up a bit, that did get in the news for some odd reason.

    Jaysus, it's so easy to forget all he has said and done.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #663
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Igotadose wrote: »
    How do you define 'presented?' You can argue that impropriety as part of the Whitewater events on behalf of the Clintons, was presented as fact yet disproved in a court of law. You can argue Trump saying HRC went after the women who Bill supposedly abused (supposedly - several recanted, several testified to the contrary, now that Trump's paying their stories are change yet again) is being presented as fact, yet false.

    This is just one of many absolutely true things about the horrible Clintons shown to be, at best, false, and widely disseminated by the likes of the journalists at Fox as the truth.

    I could go on... Travelgate...Filegate...Benghazi... "Presented as fact" yet false.

    I think this article from Vox: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules really summarizes the media treatment she gets.

    And lets not even start the false equivalence of how journalists treat them. Trump got away with phoning in to the Sunday news shows all election season - a massive disservice allowing that. He bans various notable news organizations from his entourage and events. He argues for reducing the scope of the first amendment to suit his needs, and you say Hillary gets better treatment from journalists? Journalists have been overly kind to Trump this whole cycle.

    I think you misinterpreted my post.


  • Options
    #664
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    K-9 wrote: »
    I haven't seen much coverage of Trump support at rallies at all really, recently.

    Of course when Trump was offering to pay legal costs if a protestor was roughed up a bit, that did get in the news for some odd reason.

    Jaysus, it's so easy to forget all he has said and done.

    Also easy to forget Clinton voted for the war in Iraq but that often gets forgotten about in the rush to defeat Donald Trump the worst so and so since Nixon.


  • Options
    #665
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Alright I'll break, this is my final word on the matter. You might call Gaddafi a brutal dictator, but in reality he was the figurehead of a state using direct democracy to run the country. The people were very much involved in the sort of state they were living in. If you're unfamiliar with the comparison of the before picture of Gaddafi's rule (the one which was a darling of the US government) and the picture of Libya before the US decided to bomb it back to the stone age then I suggest you check it out for yourself. Was it really necessary for NATO to destroy their Great Manmade River? Who is the bad guy here really?

    It seems the standard definition of dictator is a state that the US or UK doesn't like. Putin is another example of this folly.

    "Sure - she was happy the man's reign of terror was over. Did you also see the glee at which the broader public greeted the death of Bin Laden? people generally approve of the end of tyranny. She made no reference to the rape of Ghadaffi btw - so no idea where that's coming from?"

    Happy? She was practically giddy! Personally I found it very revealing that she would celebrate the death of a man in such a vindictive manner. Bearing in mind he offered no direct threat to the United States, he was somebody who had the nerve to question whether his country should be acting as a lapdog for the United States, the shame! Also, crucially, Libya was not at war with the United States, nor anyone else for that matter. In fact Libya had just returned from a prolonged period of isolation from trade with Western Nations. Their decision to turn on him was opportunistic from the associated downfall of neighboring leaders, and I strongly believe their action was motivated by greater access to the vast oil reserves of the country and partially for petty reasons. The broader public can act whatever way they want, they aren't elected figureheads. You didn't see Obama going around giving people high-fives when Bin Laden was killed. It's an aspect of his presidency which I acknowledge he handled quite well in terms of his demeanour (even if it did include an illegal invasion of Pakistan!). I'm not happy that the US is going to elect somebody like that. She can just about get away with that in her current position, but if she does that as President she could expect to reap the whirlwind. She would have known well that his end would come in rather gruesome terms. Ok, she couldn't have expected him to be ass-raped with a bayonet but you can guarantee she knew it wasn't going to be pretty.

    The rebels in Libya were fairly clearly on the dark side to me in 2011.

    Whether or not she holds the default position on Israel is not an adequate defence. She still sat back and watch it happen. I'm struggling to think of a more blatant form of outright mass murder than the policy of Israel to the Palestinians in recent times. Maybe Trump would have done the same, maybe not, but we absolutely know Clinton did nothing there! I think it warrants a degree of criticism. Trump did do a u-turn on Israel right enough, but probably due to their being no upside to taking an opposing view in the runup to the election. I take a degree of comfort in that he was prepared to criticise Israel for its part in the conflict.

    The position Hillary has directly relates to issues such as diplomatic relations with Russia. I would have thought that was fairly much a no-brainer. I find it curious that Donald is criticised for his proposal to soften relations with Putin and Russia. I mean it seems to me to be a fairly twisted argument that the man with the more compromising/let's work together tone to such a powerful player would be seen as the "dangerous" one! Herein lies the frustration for a lot of people.

    As for the Brexit scenario, her impact on the migrant crisis is partially resposible for the UK leaving the EU. There is no doubt that discussions re: immigration and the dangers of extremist Islamist groups were massively influential on the British voters. As for Obama, I genuinely believe his efforts prior to the vote did more harm than good. The Brits don't like being told what to do, and it was a foolish error by somebody in his position.

    To me she fails in pretty much every metric I can think of. Decision making, temperament, nepotism, her constant pandering to minorities for votes, her lack of empathy, her incompetence, some of which bordering on criminal e.g. Wikileaks, and her easily traced lies. I'm not going to sit here and say that Donald Trump has a great report card in that regard either, it would be foolish of me to do so. However,the point of the thread is the media bias against him, and I think there is enough in play here to suggest that while they are both shady characters, their histories are both murky, but the negative spoken about him in the mainstream much outstrips her by about 4:1! Any indiscretion she makes is quickly brushed aside as if it's nothing. It's not good enough, nor is it representative of what the voting public believes! It will be painfully obvious in a couple of months that the media were too quick to ignore her failings. Can the media at least have a balanced treatment of their respective failings, a bit of fairness like?

    Fair enough if you disagree, but those are my beliefs. These things are subjective for the most part. Godspeed.


  • Options
    #666
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Alright I'll break, this is my final word on the matter. You might call Gaddafi a brutal dictator, but in reality he was the figurehead of a state using direct democracy to run the country.

    ...

    Fair enough if you disagree, but those are my beliefs. These things are subjective for the most part. Godspeed.

    Eh, no. Ghadaffi was objectively a violent dictator and held personal and absolute power in Libya.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Also easy to forget Clinton voted for the war in Iraq but that often gets forgotten about in the rush to defeat Donald Trump the worst so and so since Nixon.

    Clinton doesn't dispute she supported the war. Trump does. He's a liar in that regard. There's the distinction.


  • Options
    #668
    ebbsy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,858 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Trump is not getting much protection from his own party, never mind the media. Does he really care though ? Im not sure he does.

    For the next month or so he has a free run and can do a lot of damage.


  • Options
    #669
    ligerdub
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    alastair wrote: »
    Eh, no. Ghadaffi was objectively a violent dictator and held personal and absolute power in Libya.

    I'll use your tactic.........no he wasn't.


  • Options
    #670
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Alright I'll break, this is my final word on the matter. You might call Gaddafi a brutal dictator, but in reality he was the figurehead of a state using direct democracy to run the country.

    Sure, Democracy... but when Democracy failed, there were Airstrikes.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/middle-east-in-turmoil/muammar-gaddafis-rule-teeters-on-brink/story-fn7ycml4-1226009841609


  • Options
    #671
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Overheal wrote: »
    Sure, Democracy... but when Democracy failed, there were Airstrikes.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/middle-east-in-turmoil/muammar-gaddafis-rule-teeters-on-brink/story-fn7ycml4-1226009841609

    Pretty direct form of governance, in fairness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It's certainly one way of telling your people, "I disagree with you and would like to settle the matter"


  • Options
    #673
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    ebbsy wrote: »

    For the next month or so he has a free run and can do a lot of damage.

    To himself!

    Sorry ebbs, but the times he has gained in the polls was when he was on message. When he goes on free runs they end up losing him points in the race.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #674
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Clinton doesn't dispute she supported the war. Trump does. He's a liar in that regard. There's the distinction.

    Hillary also lies. She consistently underestimates the threat of ISIS and accuses Trump of scaring the public. It is not easy to tell the people that Jihadists are a threat to the world.


  • Options
    #675
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Hillary also lies. She consistently underestimates the threat of ISIS and accuses Trump of scaring the public. It is not easy to tell the people that Jihadists are a threat to the world.

    Ehh;
    ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria, an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond, and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three.

    And time is of the essence. ISIS is demonstrating new ambition, reach, and capabilities. We have to break the group's momentum and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS.

    But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game.

    We should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy—one that embeds our mission against ISIS within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it's al-Qaeda or ISIS or some other network. An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily be torn out. It will require sustained commitment and every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight—and America must lead it.
    HRC's policy statement on ISIS.


  • Options
    #676
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Ehh;

    HRC's policy statement on ISIS.

    Yet the biggest supporters of Islamist literature is Saudi Arabia and America backs the worst Muslim states in the world.


  • Options
    #677
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Yet the biggest supporters of Islamist literature is Saudi Arabia and America backs the worst Muslim states in the world.

    Islamist literature is not ISIS, and Trump is also indebted to Saudi money. But that's not the point you were making - something about Hillary downplaying the threat of ISIS? Seems this claim doesn't really tally with the facts.


  • Options
    #678
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,299 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    ebbsy wrote: »
    Trump is not getting much protection from his own party, never mind the media. Does he really care though ? Im not sure he does.
    His party realises that there are two options;
    Stay with him, be branded as bad as him, but maybe keep some of his supporters.
    Distance yourself from him, lose his supporters, but possibly not be seen in the same light as Trump.

    Some are staying, some are fleeing. Time will tell.


  • Options
    #679
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Islamist literature is not ISIS, and Trump is also indebted to Saudi money. But that's not the point you were making - something about Hillary downplaying the threat of ISIS? Seems this claim doesn't really tally with the facts.

    Oh but it certainly does Libya is a mess because her policy was to back the Saudi's who have been pouring support to terrorists across the region. The fact that the Democratic party deny this shows how manipulative their candidate is. Beheadings and arm cutting are part of life in the Gulf state and when Trump states these uncomfortable truths he is accused of Islamophobia. Complete hogwash.


  • Options
    #680
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Oh but it certainly does Libya is a mess because her policy was to back the Saudi's who have been pouring support to terrorists across the region. The fact that the Democratic party deny this shows how manipulative their candidate is. Beheadings and arm cutting are part of life in the Gulf state and when Trump states these uncomfortable truths he is accused of Islamophobia. Complete hogwash.

    Perhaps if you could stick to a single point? Libya had nothing to do with the Saudis. Hillary has a clear policy of fighting ISIS on a number of fronts - as quoted. I don't think it's news to anyone that Saudi Arabia has beheadings or judicial amputations. It's been the same through multiple Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump really has nothing to add to the discussion beyond 'secret plans' that he won't divulge, and the winning prospect of 'bombing the **** out of them' and proposing the war crime of killing combatants families. Pretty much idiotic and useless 'contributions'.


  • Options
    #681
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Perhaps if you could stick to a single point? Libya had nothing to do with the Saudis. Hillary has a clear policy of fighting ISIS on a number of fronts - as quoted. I don't think it's news to anyone that Saudi Arabia has beheadings or judicial amputations. It's been the same through multiple Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump really has nothing to add to the discussion beyond 'secret plans' that he won't divulge, and the winning prospect of 'bombing the **** out of them' and proposing the war crime of killing combatants families. Pretty much idiotic and useless 'contributions'.

    Draw the dots. Saudi Arabia the home of sunni Islam is funding Mosque constructions all across Europe, Africa, Asia and America. The pilots of the planes that targeted the twin towers were Saudi Arabians. The ideology came out of that Kingdom and the reason I mentioned it is that Clinton's policies have been to focus on Russia and Syria instead of the phenomenal growth of Salafi & Wahhabi terror groups. The collapse of Libya created even more Jihadists. Dems would rather shoot themselves in the foot than priorities National Security.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Draw the dots. Saudi Arabia the home of sunni Islam is funding Mosque constructions all across Europe, Africa, Asia and America. The pilots of the planes that targeted the twin towers were Saudi Arabians. The ideology came out of that Kingdom and the reason I mentioned it is that Clinton's policies have been to focus on Russia and Syria instead of the phenomenal growth of Salafi & Wahhabi terror groups. The collapse of Libya created even more Jihadists. Dems would rather shoot themselves in the foot than priorities National Security.

    I'm drawing the dots and determining that this is complete twaddle, with no merit at all.


  • Options
    #683
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You know if you really want to dry up the Saudi Regime you can just get energy independent.


  • Options
    #684
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm drawing the dots and determining that this is complete twaddle, with no merit at all.

    Completely misinformed as usual. The Saudis have Wahhabism an extreme form of Islam that believes in the literal interpretation of the Quran and following the ways of the Prophet Mohammed as they were in the 7th century. A view not shared by millions of Muslims. Indeed many are not even Sunni. Iraq has one of the largest concentrations of Shia Muslims in all the world.


  • Options
    #685
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Overheal wrote: »
    Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson had to dig deep into the googles to try and disprove one of the NYT stories about being groped on a plane, attempting to argue that fold-up armrests were not a technological feature of 1980s aircraft.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-guest-cant-contain-his-laughter-at-katrina-piersons-trump-defense/

    I've seen some stretches before but that's impressive

    http://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-claim-first-class-armrests-couldnt-mov-1787749381

    Debunked.


  • Options
    #686
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Overheal wrote: »
    http://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-claim-first-class-armrests-couldnt-mov-1787749381

    Debunked.
    Even if it weren't a lie, the pathetic desperation and disconnection from reality among Trump fans over this is absurd. Do they really think people don't know how human arms work? Look at the bloody armrest even when it's laid down, for crying out loud!


  • Options
    #687
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    She just listed a load of random plane models anyway. Missed a few Boeings...


  • Options
    #688
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    She just listed a load of random plane models anyway. Missed a few Boeings...

    Like the 747 which had been flying for 10 years


  • Options
    #689
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Completely misinformed as usual. The Saudis have Wahhabism an extreme form of Islam that believes in the literal interpretation of the Quran and following the ways of the Prophet Mohammed as they were in the 7th century. A view not shared by millions of Muslims. Indeed many are not even Sunni. Iraq has one of the largest concentrations of Shia Muslims in all the world.

    Lovely, but really nothing to do with why you're trying to pass off twaddle as relevant to anything under discussion.


  • Options
    #690
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Trump has had one single meeting with a foreign diplomat who issued a statement saying Trumps account of the meeting is a lie.

    He has no strategy bar attack.

    How exactly would he be considered good at international relations?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,965 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    Clintons are sell outs. No one questions the fact they are worth half a billion . It makes no sense, she's a politician , basic wage. Obama is on what ? 250k a year ?
    Michelle and Obama want in on the Clinton deals and will sell out the people of America to get it .


Advertisement