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
13567…51

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    That's says how journalists identify politically the biggest group is independent/other who amount to about 65%. Journalist who identify with the big two parties more are democrats than republican. That study does not back to the claim in the thread. If anything it shows a 2-1 independent bias.
    I didn't say anything about independents. I stated in the US, Democrat journalists outnumber Republicans 4 to 1. Please don't try to twist my words. The study verifies that.


  • Options
    #63
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Amerika wrote: »
    I didn't say anything about independents. I stated in the US, Democrat journalists outnumber Republicans 4 to 1. Please don't try to twist my words. The study verifies that.

    Did I say other wise! Stop twisting my words am I incorrect do independents make up 50%. Did I say the claim that Democrates largely out numbers republicans was incorrect? Deflection again.


  • Options
    #64
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    super_furry wrote: »
    Oh come on. Outside of whackjob places like Infowars and Breitbart, no-one other than people of the_donald is taking this Clinton health smear campaign seriously.

    I'd be interested in seeing some reputable links backing up these health claims too.

    You got it. But does it make any difference that I'm correct?

    That was then...
    http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/05/09/mccains-age-and-past-health-problems-could-be-an-issue-in-the-presidential-race

    This is now...
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292352-cnn-analyst-questions-about-clintons-health-sexist

    Or should CNN and US News and World Report now be considered 'whackjob places?'


  • Options
    #65
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Amerika wrote: »
    You got it. But does it make any difference that I'm correct?

    That was then...
    http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/05/09/mccains-age-and-past-health-problems-could-be-an-issue-in-the-presidential-race

    This is now...
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292352-cnn-analyst-questions-about-clintons-health-sexist

    Or should CNN and US News and World Report now be considered 'whackjob places?'

    You are incorrect or to put it another way just plain wrong. http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/hillary-clinton-health-medical-stamina-jimmy-kimmel-seizures-stroke-concussion-giuliani-trump-age-doctor-lisa-bardack-syringe-video-muffin-shop-hannity-breitbart-conspiracy-diet/


  • Options
    #66
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Another example of media bias against trump they never reported him being a brave solider. http://www.redstate.com/diary/Anteater/2016/02/17/trumps-vulgar-admission-avoiding-stds-women-personal-vietnam/

    Very brave Donal I suppose we know know he never caught anything which in the 80's in New York is amazing, he was married then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    You are incorrect or to put it another way just plain wrong. http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/hillary-clinton-health-medical-stamina-jimmy-kimmel-seizures-stroke-concussion-giuliani-trump-age-doctor-lisa-bardack-syringe-video-muffin-shop-hannity-breitbart-conspiracy-diet/
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make.


  • Options
    #68
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Amerika wrote: »
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

    Your view of Clintons current health is incorrect. Her doctor has said so. It's unsurprising the few minor problems in her 68 years. It's that's simple. But at least trump survived the STI's in the 80's.


  • Options
    #69
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Your view of Clintons current health is incorrect. Her doctor has said so. It's unsurprising the few minor problems in her 68 years. It's that's simple. But at least trump survived the STI's in the 80's.

    I still don't understand as everything I've noted about Hillary's health are public knowledge and aren't minor problems. But the point I was making was the mainstream have seemed to take the stance, from numerous articles, that questioning her health is somehow sexist.


  • Options
    #70
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Amerika wrote: »
    I don’t recall ever engaging you before. This appears to be little more than a personal attack, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you provide examples that HAVE lead you to that conclusion in the past.

    Satisfying that I would be happy to provide you what you are requesting. Are you looking for examples of the media saying it’s sexist to raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s health? Or examples of the media’s attacks on Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, or John McCain? Or that Google is surppressing searches? Though I do find it odd that you are requesting things that have been common knowledge. It's kinda like asking me to back up the statement that water is wet..
    At least half of what you said in that post was false. The Google thing has been done to death and is actually a policy of Google's not to autocomplete with derogatory statements a search of any named person.

    The second thing was the statement about Hillary Clinton's 'serious' health' issues. Anything that I've seen coming from the Trump camp and assorted followers has been doctored videos and over-exaggerated minor ailments. Like her cough. :rolleyes:

    Others have responded to the remaining claims in your post.

    Generally I find that what people refer to as 'common knowledge' is usually something that's been made up and broadcast as fact. That's why I asked for back up. Apart from the demonstrably false statements I've already alluded to.


  • Options
    #71
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Amerika wrote: »
    I still don't understand as everything I've noted about Hillary's health are public knowledge and aren't minor problems. But the point I was making was the mainstream have seemed to take the stance, from numerous articles, that questioning her health is somehow sexist.

    Did the article I post say that. I don't speak for all media, you can assume I usually only quote from articles I agree with and support.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    You got it. But does it make any difference that I'm correct?

    That was then...
    http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/05/09/mccains-age-and-past-health-problems-could-be-an-issue-in-the-presidential-race

    This is now...
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292352-cnn-analyst-questions-about-clintons-health-sexist

    Or should CNN and US News and World Report now be considered 'whackjob places?'

    It's worth pointing out that neither make any claim of health concerns regarding Hillary Clinton, unlike other (actual) whackjob places.


  • Options
    #73
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alastair wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that neither make any claim of health concerns regarding Hillary Clinton, unlike other (actual) whackjob places.

    Of course not. you've made my point... that if you bring up any health concerns regarding Hillary then you're being sexist.

    From the piece...
    New CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers says questioning Hillary Clinton's health has “an element of sexism to it.”


  • Options
    #74
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Amerika wrote: »
    Of course not. you've made my point... that if you bring up any health concerns regarding Hillary then you're being sexist.

    From the piece...
    New CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers says questioning Hillary Clinton's health has “an element of sexism to it.”
    Just to point out that this has nothing to do with Amerika's initial claim.

    This is what Super Furry replied to:
    Amerika wrote: »
    It’s public knowledge that Hillary Clinton suffers from a number of serious health issues that could adversely impede her performing the duties of president, Hypothyroidism, blood thinners to prevent blood clots, and Bill said “required six months of very serious work” to recover after a fainting spell. And that's just what is public knowledge.
    super_furry wrote: »
    Oh come on. Outside of whackjob places like Infowars and Breitbart, no-one other than people of the_donald is taking this Clinton health smear campaign seriously.

    I'd be interested in seeing some reputable links backing up these health claims too.

    So how is this anything but Amerika refusing to back up his own claims? How does this 'make his point' like he claims? Are we all OK to make outlandish claims, and then when questioned on them, answer something else entirely?


  • Options
    #75
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Just to point out that this has nothing to do with Amerika's initial claim.

    This is what Super Furry replied to:



    So how is this anything but Amerika refusing to back up his own claims? How does this 'make his point' like he claims? Are we all OK to make outlandish claims, and then when questioned on them, answer something else entirely?

    They never do. I got into trouble for pointing out that exact fact.


  • Options
    #76
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Mod:

    Some guidance:
    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Considering that I know that half of what you say is untrue, you'll have to forgive me for asking you to back it all up with reputable links.

    Does supporting Donald Trump automatically come with a lie erector?

    Above is below standard, you are basically insinuating all Trump supporters are liars. This is supposed to be a civilised discussion site and that's impossible if people are going to call their opponents liars.
    Amerika wrote: »
    I don’t recall ever engaging you before. This appears to be little more than a personal attack, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you provide examples that HAVE lead you to that conclusion in the past.

    If you think it's a personal attack, report it and do not reply in kind. Mods don't care who started it as it isn't the playground here.
    Satisfying that I would be happy to provide you what you are requesting. Are you looking for examples of the media saying it’s sexist to raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s health? Or examples of the media’s attacks on Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, or John McCain? Or that Google is surppressing searches? Though I do find it odd that you are requesting things that have been common knowledge.

    Just provide the links requested.
    Amerika wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    Here you go. I trust the study will suffice.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

    (Will you also require Dibbler to back up his attack on me, or are some things just a given? )

    Less of the back seat moderation thanks.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Just to point out that this has nothing to do with Amerika's initial claim.

    This is what Super Furry replied to:



    So how is this anything but Amerika refusing to back up his own claims? How does this 'make his point' like he claims? Are we all OK to make outlandish claims, and then when questioned on them, answer something else entirely?

    Just point out the article doesn't back up the claims. The rest is verging on back seat moderation.
    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    They never do. I got into trouble for pointing out that exact fact.

    Again, below the standard.

    So 2 mod warnings, below standard posts deleted and now examples provided of what doesn't help the mods do our job. We've spent enough time here so bans will be next.

    Do not reply questioning moderation on this thread. Pm one of the mods. Thank you.

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



  • Options
    #77
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Have y’all taken notice to our lovely media lately… Hillary’s physical health is off limits and Trump’s mental health is worthy of open debate?

    Examples…
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/media-censors-hillary-health-concerns/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV2PKytigso


  • Options
    #78
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    Have y all taken notice to our lovely media lately Hillary s physical health is off limits and Trump s mental health is worthy of open debate?]

    Well to be fair the media have had a,field day with clintons health report, there's just not that much to take issue with is there?

    Meanwhile trump is exhibiting textbook symptoms of narcissism so it seems right that there should be speculation.


  • Options
    #79
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    A couple of months back I was rooting for Trump as I felt he would shake things up. But the more I read about Trump, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he's a complete and utter chancer. IMHO there is something seriously wrong with the political system when these are the 2 candidates voters have to choose between, in a country the size of the US.


  • Options
    #80
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    A couple of months back I was rooting for Trump as I felt he would shake things up. But the more I read about Trump, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he's a complete and utter chancer. IMHO there is something seriously wrong with the political system when these are the 2 candidates voters have to choose between, in a country the size of the US.
    I’m curious. What is it about his policies that makes you consider him a chancer? Or is it something other than his goals as President? Build a wall? The building of a wall on the southern border is already a law. Deport illegal aliens? Our current laws state that is the proper course of action. Lower taxes? This has been every Republican's goals for years. Better trade deals? Every American wants that, and the same goes for growing the economy, more jobs and especially for blacks, more manufacturing, better education, better pay, better vetting or legal immigrants, and bringing businesses back to the US that have left for better corporate tax rates, lower wages, and more favorable government regulations. When it comes down to the actual things he hopes to achieve, I just don’t see all the hysteria here and what we are being spoon fed by a biased media, as justified.


  • Options
    #81
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    A couple of months back I was rooting for Trump as I felt he would shake things up. But the more I read about Trump, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he's a complete and utter chancer. IMHO there is something seriously wrong with the political system when these are the 2 candidates voters have to choose between, in a country the size of the US.
    I m curious. What is it about his policies that makes you consider him a chancer? Or is it something other than his goals as President? .

    His economic policy's are designed to enrich himself and his friends.

    The wall is nonsense, the Muslim ban is lunatic. Ditching our nato allies in favour of Russia is insane.

    Additionally he's a pathological liar, a bigot, a misogynist, and is possibly suffering from a mental condition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    His economic policy's are designed to enrich himself and his friends.

    The wall is nonsense, the Muslim ban is lunatic. Ditching our nato allies in favour of Russia is insane.

    Additionally he's a pathological liar, a bigot, a misogynist, and is possibly suffering from a mental condition.

    The Wall is no different to building the Hoover Dam or America's highway system which promotes gas guzzling cars over a public transport system. All he has said about Islam comes from his personal experience with dealings he had we them when he was over in Saudi Arabia.


  • Options
    #83
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The Wall is no different to building the Hoover Dam or America's highway system which promotes gas guzzling cars over a public transport system. All he has said about Islam comes from his personal experience with dealings he had we them when he was over in Saudi Arabia.
    It's not even in the same galaxy as building dams or a road network. The only thing they may have in common is the cost.

    What's nuts about the border wall is that it has to be built along the border. There's no capability to move it if the terrain is unsuitable or impractical. The current border fence which is erected along key stretches of the border couldn't actually be built in certain sections and had to be moved to other locations. One such move has an entire golf course on the 'Mexico' side of the fence. A wall would be ten times harder to site than a fence.

    So Mexicans can walk onto the golf course and be in the USA whilst still being across the fence. Completely nuts. The residents in those areas think it's hilarious.


  • Options
    #84
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    It's not even in the same galaxy as building dams or a road network. The only thing they may have in common is the cost.

    What's nuts about the border wall is that it has to be built along the border. There's no capability to move it if the terrain is unsuitable or impractical. The current border fence which is erected along key stretches of the border couldn't actually be built in certain sections and had to be moved to other locations. One such move has an entire golf course on the 'Mexico' side of the fence. A wall would be ten times harder to site than a fence.

    So Mexicans can walk onto the golf course and be in the USA whilst still being across the fence. Completely nuts. The residents in those areas think it's hilarious.

    Their are already fences and bordering beside Mexico, what is needed it to put all these fences together. I'd say the ranchers and landowners would agree to allowing their property to be used for a Federal fence or border between Mexico & America. The big problem is the desert crossings.

    Lets not try to compare the Mexican immigrations to previous immigrant to America. This is a Natural border without any ability to control the flow of people back and forte. We do see examples of fences being put up in other parts of the world.

    Look what is really needed is to control the flow of human trafficking otherwise the Coyotes will make use of the desert and obey no laws be they Mexican or American. At the moment the immigration system in that part of the Continent is crazy.


  • Options
    #85
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The Wall is no different to building the Hoover Dam or America's highway system which promotes gas guzzling cars over a public transport system.

    What a very odd way to describe it.

    Building a wall to cut yourself off from your neighbours is nothing like building a dam or a highway.


  • Options
    #86
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    What a very odd way to describe it.

    Building a wall to cut yourself off from your neighbours is nothing like building a dam or a highway.

    In a way it is. They all involve public money to provide it and they provide a service to the community. That's why traditionally countries in the Balkans had border agencies. Northern Ireland had a border with the Republic of Ireland. North & South Korea has a border. Palestine & Israel has a border. The Soviet Union, present day Russia has assortment of borders with different powers.

    Their is nothing abnormal with having a border per se.


  • Options
    #87
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Their are already fences and bordering beside Mexico, what is needed it to put all these fences together. I'd say the ranchers and landowners would agree to allowing their property to be used for a Federal fence or border between Mexico & America. The big problem is the desert crossings.

    Lets not try to compare the Mexican immigrations to previous immigrant to America. This is a Natural border without any ability to control the flow of people back and forte. We do see examples of fences being put up in other parts of the world.

    Look what is really needed is to control the flow of human trafficking otherwise the Coyotes will make use of the desert and obey no laws be they Mexican or American. At the moment the immigration system in that part of the Continent is crazy.
    I know you appear to be answering me, but it doesn't look like you read my post at all. :confused:

    The cost of creating a wall the size that Trump envisages it, would be enormous. But the main problem would be actually building it. A lot of the border is river, and walls don't work well in the middle of rivers. You can't build on river banks either because of subsidence. So in those locations, the wall would need to be built well into US territory, ceding vast areas to Mexico by default.

    But the main issue is that the majority of illegal immigrants come across through normal channels and outstay their visas. A wall would do the square root of feck all to stop that.


  • Options
    #88
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Their is nothing abnormal with having a border per se.

    We're talking about the delusion of thinking the US can build a physical wall along the border with mexico.


  • Options
    #89
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    We're talking about the delusion of thinking the US can build a physical wall along the border with mexico.

    It is perfectly possible. It would require Mexican forces stationed on their side of their border. A Mexican presence all around the Navajo Desert and near Tijuana. The US could with the expertise of the corp of engineers have border guards from Texas to California. Congress would have to decide if they want to use Federal subsidies or the private sector. State & local authorities could also get involved. Certain sections might not need a border since they might be impassible for entry into the US. Their could be checkpoints that allow citizens to freely travel back and forte on a number of different routes.

    The point is that it would be a massive investment to create a border force situated beside Mexico.


  • Options
    #90
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    It is perfectly possible. It would require Mexican forces stationed on their side of their border. A Mexican presence all around the Navajo Desert and near Tijuana. The US could with the expertise of the corp of engineers have border guards from Texas to California. Congress would have to decide if they want to use Federal subsidies or the private sector. State & local authorities could also get involved. Certain sections might not need a border since they might be impassible for entry into the US. Their could be checkpoints that allow citizens to freely travel back and forte on a number of different routes.

    The point is that it would be a massive investment to create a border force situated beside Mexico.
    You haven't addressed the practical issues of trying to build a wall. You're just talking about forces.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Certain sections might not need a border since they might be impassible for entry into the US. Their could be checkpoints that allow citizens to freely travel back and forte on a number of different routes.

    Riiiight. Sure. I understand now. It all sounds very practical...

    So we wouldn't need a border on the bits that are impassable for entry huh?

    Checkpoints on a number of routes sounds like a great idea. How convienient for the citizens. I can see you have this well thought out.


Advertisement