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…2526283031…51

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    dissed doc wrote: »
    How can anyone relate to Clinton, so many wars and dead people.

    Which wars do you believe Hillary to be responsible for, and why? Specifics please.


  • Options
    #813
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,465 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Ah Alastair, I like some posters who have a sense of humour. No other explanation really.


  • Options
    #814
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    dissed doc wrote: »
    His credibility is not in question - his tax records were stolen.

    Hillary is constantly on the back foot trying to prove how great she is. Will the nuclear war with Russia justify the group think that is supporting her? Like I said on another thread, she could kill hundreds of thousands of people, have Julian Assange executed and a core group of die hards will be there waving flags for her. Why is that?

    Donald trump might be unsavoury as a personality, but he is certainly more accepatble than Clinton - is it that the sociopaths get her? How can anyone relate to Clinton, so many wars and dead people. Hopefully there are enough anti-war voters to keep her out.

    One years records have come to light and same posted from Trump Towers New York. That does not take away from his refusal to release past returns.

    You have a view on Clinton and you are more than entitled to that view. I have a view on Trump that he is a liar who would not be adverse to use nukes so as a person against nuclear war and a anti war person I will support Clinton and like you I am entitled to my opinion. But that done not take away from the fact Trump is a liar and very dangerous person for American society.


  • Options
    #815
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    alastair wrote: »
    eh?

    Yeah, the auditors stole them. Haven't you heard?


  • Options
    #816
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    dissed doc wrote: »
    His credibility is not in question - his tax records were stolen.
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... does this mean the Wikileaks emails are also inadmissible?
    Hillary is constantly on the back foot trying to prove how great she is. Will the nuclear war with Russia justify the group think that is supporting her? Like I said on another thread, she could kill hundreds of thousands of people, have Julian Assange executed and a core group of die hards will be there waving flags for her. Why is that?

    Donald trump might be unsavoury as a personality, but he is certainly more accepatble than Clinton - is it that the sociopaths get her? How can anyone relate to Clinton, so many wars and dead people. Hopefully there are enough anti-war voters to keep her out.

    Seriously? Where did this idea come from - outside of a Trump rally - that Hillary is some kind of warmonger waiting to happen, that will cackle as she gets us into WW3?

    And where is Trump on the issue of Nuclear War? Besides "bombing the **** out of them" bombing "every square inch" of ISIS controlled territories, and "taking out their families"? Michael Hayden, CIA Director and former NSA Director:

    https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016


  • Options
    #818
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016

    It might have something to do with the essential pointlessness of most of the wikileaks material. Assange certainly didn't deliver on his promise of campaign-destroying revelations.


  • Options
    #819
    TheDoctor
    Registered Users Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016


    Sex sells, emails on political policy doesn't.


  • Options
    #820
    TheDoctor
    Registered Users Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016

    I assume the breakdown for FOXs coverage of both stories is also mentioned in there.


  • Options
    #821
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    TheDoctor wrote: »
    I assume the breakdown for FOXs coverage of both stories is also mentioned in there.

    If there were leaked emails that were detrimental to Trump, I have little doubt the mainstream media would be reporting on them, ad nauseum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016

    Such Melodrama.

    The emails are being reported on. However, there are some serious issues to address there, the same as when Trump's tax returns released, when the media spent at least as much time arguing about how they were obtained as they did about what the tax return implied. In the case of the Wikileaks you have 2 foreign actors illegally obtaining documents in ways that would have made Nixon giddy if he had thought of it himself.

    There's also the problem I see in all the media coverage especially regarding his surrogates and whomever: they all want to pivot to policy and stuff, but if you look at what Trump keeps going on about, he hasn't talked about policy in weeks, instead he's gone on a tirade against his accusers ("She would not be my first choice"), spent his time accusing the media of bias, and more dangerously crying that the election is rigged when all the polling and all the projections show he is going to lose this thing and lose it big.

    Plus if you go online (and here you are) you can find information on the emails all day. The emails are perfectly formatted to being read online. But where are the bombshells? Staffers hid foreign donations from Clinton; Staffers whined that the San Bernadino shooter wasn't white; some news pundits kissed ass to get interviews. ? It doesn't lend itself, frankly, to being talked about on the television news sources when it makes for much better rating$ to rebroadcast Trump's videotaped remarks about sexually assaulting women. And what would they talk about, Clinton staffers being douchebags? Trump staffers have brawled with protestors, whats the point?

    Who knows, maybe the reasons journalists don't like Trump is because Trump has actively declared war on them. Maybe he fcuked that up?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/journalists-report-increased-threats-and-harassment-at-rallies-as-trump-declares-war-on-the-media/

    Or maybe it's the fact that he threatened the 1st Amendment

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-threatens-to-weaken-first-amendment-protections-for-reporters/

    Or maybe in addition to that, most folks in the media just straight up don't agree with his policies, and having reported on a number of foreign regimes in the past, know this could turn out badly if Trump is elected? Who knows. But when you threaten the media for reporting facts and then declare war on them, do you really deserve to be that surprised that they aren't singing your praises?


  • Options
    #823
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,465 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The Russians didn't bother hacking Trump only Clinton. They should have kept a balance too.


  • Options
    #824
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Amerika wrote: »
    If there were leaked emails that were detrimental to Trump, I have little doubt the mainstream media would be reporting on them, ad nauseum.
    Good to see Amerika got his television set back working, as it must have been out of service for the first 7 or so months of the year.


  • Options
    #825
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Good to see Amerika got his television set back working, as it must have been out of service for the first 7 or so months of the year.

    And for most of 2015, 2014...


  • Options
    #826
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary during this same time period.


    I almost agree except you're not appreciating the flip side which is that Clinton would have to shoot trump to get any coverage at all. They ignore her speeches except when she mentions trump. As soon as she stops talking about trump they cut away. They are obsessed with trump. Trump gets about 90% of the coverage and commentary. If it's not connected to trump it doesn't get covered.

    If he had the sense he seemed to display during the primaries he could have used that instead of going to war with them. What was he thinking? Initially he boasted about how little he spent on ads because he had the press in his palm. He's too much of an idiot to understand that he needs to use the coverage to his benefit and not resist it.


  • Options
    #827
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    I almost agree except you're not appreciating the flip side which is that Clinton would have to shoot trump to get any coverage at all. They ignore her speeches except when she mentions trump. As soon as she stops talking about trump they cut away. They are obsessed with trump. Trump gets about 90% of the coverage and commentary. If it's not connected to trump it doesn't get covered.

    If he had the sense he seemed to display during the primaries he could have used that instead of going to war with them. What was he thinking? Initially he boasted about how little he spent on ads because he had the press in his palm. He's too much of an idiot to understand that he needs to use the coverage to his benefit and not resist it.

    But there is little doubt that the mainstream media is using their clout to take down Trump with stories that are overwhelmingly all negative, and giving favorable, undeserved, coverage to Clinton.

    Have you seen Assange's internet link has now intentionally been severed by state party. Luckily he has a contingency plan. Is the entire free world now working to not allow any discredit to Hillary Clinton? And how much coverage was given to Hillary's questioning about taking Assange out with a drone?

    https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/


  • Options
    #828
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    Amerika wrote: »
    But there little doubt that the mainstream media is using their clout to take down Trump which is all negative, and giving favorable, undeserved, coverage to Clinton.

    Have you seen Assange's internet link has now intentionally been severed by state party. Luckily he has a contingency plan. Is the entire free world is now working to not allow any discredit to Hillary Clinton? And how much coverage was given to Hillary's questioning about taking Assange out with a drone?

    https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/

    Look, Hillary's campaign has cost almost half a billion dollars. There are trillions of dollars riding on her being elected. The amount of vested interests is unprecedented. She has been bought and paid for.

    Trump? He has stepped on a lot of toes. He is the bad guy. His speech about the media and politics and big money is right up there with JFK's speech that got him killed.

    If Clinton wins, I wonder by what criteria people will measure to determine of she as leader of the free world, is doing a goos job. Invading Iran? Nuclear war on Russia? Drone strikes on civilians? Destabilising north Africa and creating a power vacuum for Isis? She is beyond the pale.


  • Options
    #829
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    But there little doubt that the mainstream media is using their clout to take down Trump which is all negative, and giving favorable, undeserved, coverage to Clinton.

    Have you seen Assange's internet link has now intentionally been severed by state party. Luckily he has a contingency plan. Is the entire free world is now working to not allow any discredit to Hillary Clinton? And how much coverage was given to Hillary's questioning about taking Assange out with a drone?

    https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/

    Hmm, Putin mouthpiece repeats unverified claims of 'a state party' cutting off Assange's interwebs access. Maybe the Ecuadorian embassy didn't pay their Virgin bill on time? I suspect a 'state party' would make a better job of interrupting wikileaks than whatever blip in Assange's service might have amounted to. And when is Assange going to post up his killer Clinton expose? Sounds like an awful lot of smoke with very little fire.


  • Options
    #830
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    But there is little doubt that the mainstream media is using their clout to take down Trump with stories that are overwhelmingly all negative, and giving favorable, undeserved, coverage to Clinton. ]

    Trump is taking down Trump all by himself.


  • Options
    #831
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    dissed doc wrote: »
    Look, Hillary's campaign has cost almost half a billion dollars. There are trillions of dollars riding on her being elected. The amount of vested interests is unprecedented. She has been bought and paid for.

    Hillary is nearly at the level of campaign contributions that Obama got in 2012. How exactly was Obama bought and paid for? Trump isn't that far behind on his campaign costs - how exactly has he been bought and paid for?

    Also - feel free to respond to my earlier question any time it suits - re: Hillary's responsibility for wars.
    Which wars do you believe Hillary to be responsible for, and why? Specifics please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    But there is little doubt that the mainstream media is using their clout to take down Trump with stories that are overwhelmingly all negative, and giving favorable, undeserved, coverage to Clinton.
    Clout is a two-way street. When you treat the media like **** and mock about taking advantage of their free coverage, and threaten to erode their first amendment rights if you get elected, frankly I'm not surprised their stories are negative. Not to mention however, it's all fact based reporting - Trump does and says a lot of negative things. All they have to do is point a lens at him and he destroys himself.


  • Options
    #833
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    Clout is a two-way street. When you treat the media like **** and mock about taking advantage of their free coverage, and threaten to erode their first amendment rights if you get elected, frankly I'm not surprised their stories are negative. Not to mention however, it's all fact based reporting - Trump does and says a lot of negative things. All they have to do is point a lens at him and he destroys himself.
    Are you defending the media's use of their medium as a mechanism of revenge against Trump?


  • Options
    #834
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you defending the media's use of their medium as a mechanism of revenge against Trump?

    No I'm defending their right to report facts in relation to a candidate who wants to undermine their fundamental existence if elected. You can forget a free press in America if he broadens the libel laws.


  • Options
    #835
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,008 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    From Friday 7th October evening to Thursday 13th October morning, morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump. During that time WikiLeaks was releasing emails from top Hillary staff. The coverage by those same news organizations amounted to 36 minutes during this same time period. And a large focus of the network news coverage regarding the damaging WikiLeaks regarding Clinton were how emails were hacked and leaked.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9967/how-much-does-media-cover-trump-vs-wikileaks-hank-berrien#modal

    R.I.P. Journalistic Integrity. Born 1776, Died 2016

    Was there anything worth reporting on? I mean even you just refer to wikileaks vaguely without going into detail.

    People keep going emails/wikileaks mean Hillary is bad without saying what was in them. From the ones I have seen there was very little that would be considered news.

    I am also curious as to whst history book has the creation of the United States linked with the creation of journalistic integrity or are you referring to another event in 1776?


  • Options
    #836
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Good point, implies that you're pissing on the Federalist Papers and many other things


  • Options
    #837
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you defending the media's use of their medium as a mechanism of revenge against Trump?

    That's absurd.

    If trump stopped attacking everyone around him they wouldn't have to cover it. It's that simple.

    If he started actually making sense he could clean up with all the coverage he gets.


  • Options
    #838
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Was there anything worth reporting on? I mean even you just refer to wikileaks vaguely without going into detail.

    People keep going emails/wikileaks mean Hillary is bad without saying what was in them. From the ones I have seen there was very little that would be considered news.

    I am also curious as to whst history book has the creation of the United States linked with the creation of journalistic integrity or are you referring to another event in 1776?
    Just a couple of points we’ve learned from the email leaks:
    • She believes in open borders.
    • She hates average Americans.
    • That everyone knows Hillary is a liar
    • The Hillary Campaign decided to take donations from foreign agents.
    • The campaign believed Benghazi was a legitimate issue for failing to protect US personnel at the embassy.
    • Hillary's lawyer admits to obstruction of justice
    • Hillary admits she is out of touch.
    • With the president’s knowledge and involvement in Hillary’s private e-mail scheme, it’s clear there was never going to be a prosecution.

    And all my posts regarding the media in this thread were in regard to the US media. I thought that was clear, but apparently not. And 1776 was the birth of our nation... the comment was more a political metaphor than anything else.


  • Options
    #839
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,241 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Just a couple of points we’ve learned from the email leaks:
    • She believes in open borders.
    • She hates average Americans.
    • That everyone knows Hillary is a liar
    • The Hillary Campaign decided to take donations from foreign agents.
    • The campaign believed Benghazi was a legitimate issue for failing to protect US personnel at the embassy.
    • Hillary's lawyer admits to obstruction of justice
    • Hillary admits she is out of touch.
    • With the president’s knowledge and involvement in Hillary’s private e-mail scheme, it’s clear there was never going to be a prosecution.

    And all my post regarding the media were in regard to the US media. I thought that was clear, but apparently not.
    sources?


  • Options
    #840
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    Just a couple of points we’ve learned from the email leaks:
    • She believes in open borders.
    • She hates average Americans.
    • That everyone knows Hillary is a liar
    • The Hillary Campaign decided to take donations from foreign agents.
    • The campaign believed Benghazi was a legitimate issue for failing to protect US personnel at the embassy.
    • Hillary's lawyer admits to obstruction of justice
    • Hillary admits she is out of touch.
    • With the president’s knowledge and involvement in Hillary’s private e-mail scheme, it’s clear there was never going to be a prosecution.

    We've learned no such thing. Mostly because none of these claims are actually supported by the content of the email extracts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    sources?

    Here are some sources you requested for the bullet points made regarding information that has come out over the email leaks...

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/leaked-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-hates-the-phrase-everyday-americans/
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439852/hillary-clintons-obstruction-justice-email-and-server-deletion-was-crime
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441115/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-wikileaks-john-podesta-concern


Advertisement