The biased Media vs Trump!

Billy86

meepins wrote: »

I'll just leave this here if by remote chance someone wanders into this thread for something other than to repeat propaganda ad nauseum.This video was released earlier but it's being ignored (of course) by mainstream news. It reveals what was suspected all along about the violence around the republican party conventions and others. It may get taken down soon but for the moment youtube are just fiddling the view counter afaik.

So after all your bluster about sources, this is the kind of source you get your 'news' off of?

What the hell is a 'feild director' by the way?

alastair

meepins wrote: »

This video was released earlier but it's being ignored (of course) by mainstream news. It reveals what was suspected all along about the violence around the republican party conventions and others.

That the Trump supporters are prone to violence? I'm not sure that conceding that wearing a Planned Parenthood teeshirt to a Trump rally is deemed to be a trigger for violence is a particularly beneficial point of argument for the Trump ticket, but if you insist?


Nice conspiracy on the YouTube view count btw.

BorneTobyWilde

Oh help him God, please please help him .

Billy86

alastair wrote: »

That the Trump supporters are prone to violence? I'm not sure that conceding that wearing a Planned Parenthood teeshirt to a Trump rally is deemed to be a trigger for violence is a particularly beneficial point of argument for the Trump ticket, but if you insist?


Nice conspiracy on the YouTube view count btw.

Oh, I'd be careful about using that word - you know how upset Trump fans get when people enter their safe spaces to begin with!

Overheal

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-claiming-liberal-media-bias-is-an-insult-to-conservatives-and-the-truth/

This topic of “liberal media bias” is one which I take particularly seriously because I have devoted an enormous amount of my life and career as a talk host, columnist, and documentary filmmaker to proving the case that vast majority of the news media is dangerously biased towards Democrats and liberal ideas (a case which gets even stronger literally every day). I have not only spent the time and effort in the trenches in defense of what I once perceived to be a just and critical cause, but I have the personal scars to show for it (unlike fake fighters against bias like the “conservative” “Media Research Center” which fundraises off of bad media coverage and wouldn’t exist if the problem ever really got solved).

To see Donald Trump absurdly try to use the excruciating work that me and many others in the conservative movement have done to educate voters about this insidious reality, for nothing but his own personal self-interest, is incredibly disheartening. For him to do so on behalf of a campaign with no legitimate chance to win, all to undermine the faith in our elections and help lay the groundwork for “Trump TV,” is flat-out disgraceful.

Even the professionals who scream liberal bias are pissed at Trump, for hijacking a real problem as they see it and converting it into part of his "they're out to get me" narrative.

Overheal

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network

If we follow the original theory: Trump never wanted to win, then his pushing cries of media bias make all the more sense now. Having made himself a household name again for another generation, he will decry that only the media that HE provides can provide you the truth, for $14.99/mo.

meepins

Billy86 wrote: »

So after all your bluster about sources, this is the kind of source you get your 'news' off of?

What the hell is a 'feild director' by the way?

What are you talking about? These are people hired by the Clinton campaign on camera admitting they hire people to riot. The violence that caused the Trump rally in Chicago to be shut down where police were injured.. the guy at 9.30ish admits that was them.

CMOTDibbler

meepins wrote: »

What are you talking about? These are people hired by the Clinton campaign on camera admitting they hire people to riot. The violence that caused the Trump rally in Chicago to be shut down where police were injured.. the guy at 9.30ish admits that was them.

You're deluded if you think this kind of activity is restricted to democrats. They all do it. Protesters are planted at every rally to try and disrupt it. Only a week ago, Obama was interrupted multiple times by protesters at a rally in North Carolina.

This kind of thing isn't new. It's been going on in politics for donkeys years. It was a feature of Irish political rallies going as far back as Eoin O'Duffy and the blueshirts and the (then) new Fianna Fail party.

I'd be much more impressed by O'Keeffe and his videos if they actually exposed this kind of thing by both parties. You can't be taken seriously as an investigative journalist if you direct all your energies in favour of one side or another.

alastair

meepins wrote: »

What are you talking about? These are people hired by the Clinton campaign on camera admitting they hire people to riot. The violence that caused the Trump rally in Chicago to be shut down where police were injured.. the guy at 9.30ish admits that was them.

Nope. They hire people to antagonise the idiotic Trump supporting knuckledraggers outside the rallies - by such incendiary activities as wearing Planned Parenthood teeshirts. Who's looking the worst here (hence the strategy in the first place)? Clue - it's the idiot knuckledraggers, who so often choose violence as their response.

dissed doc

alastair wrote: »

Nope. They hire people to antagonise the idiotic Trump supporting knuckledraggers outside the rallies - by such incendiary activities as wearing Planned Parenthood teeshirts. Who's looking the worst here (hence the strategy in the first place)? Clue - it's the idiot knuckledraggers, who so often choose violence as their response.

They are still entitled to a vote, and should be able to listen to their preferred candidate without being pushed around.

alastair

dissed doc wrote: »

They are still entitled to a vote, and should be able to listen to their preferred candidate without being pushed around.

Who's pushing them around? Who's denying their vote?

A: No-one is.

B_Wayne

dissed doc wrote: »

They are still entitled to a vote, and should be able to listen to their preferred candidate without being pushed around.

T-shirts justify rioting? Nobody is entitled to be violent. Nobody is preventing their rights in any way.

BorneTobyWilde

Giualani V Cuban on cnn

Cuban sitting on his hands, getting a lesson in politics .

I think Giualani won that debate.

Billy86

Quick recap for those who missed it...

Significantly more people think Clinton has the temperament to be President than those who think Trump do, why is this?
Giuliani: E-MAILS!!!!

OK all well and good, but why do you think Trump has the temperament to be President?
Giuliani: E-MAILS EMAILS!!

Again, why do you think TRUMP has the temperament in light of all his scandals?
Giuliani: Clinton has been in politics for too long.

Not even Trump's biggest cheerleader can name a single reason why he would be a good president.

All in all more of a shouting match you'd see on American sports coverage (this link is more or less exactly what it sounded like), than any kind of debate but Cuban had a funny one when talking about Trump being shady - "he's been sued over 3,500 times, I've been sued less than 10!" For those who might not know, Mark Cuban is an actual self made multi billionaire.

That said, at least Giuliani stayed on point - let's see how that works out for Donald in about one hours time.

realitykeeper

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Lots of assertions there about Trump's truthfulness. Care to back them up?

This is precisely the type of bias the OP is referring to, guilty until proven innocent. Unlike Clinton who apparently is innocent, even after being proven guilty. The reason Trump is going to win is because of the media bias against him. The polls got it wrong on Brexit and I would not be at all surprised if they are wrong on the US election and I am speaking as someone who would vote for Hilary over Donald.

The reason I would vote for Hilary is because QE has set up the US economy for the greatest depression in history and I think the democrats should stay on to clean up their own mess.

wes

realitykeeper wrote: »

The polls got it wrong on Brexit

Except the polls didn't. Brexit was leading for several weeks. Remain only moved ahead again after the Tommy Mair terror attack. The polls right before the vote only had a very narrow remain win, which was well within the margin of error. So the polls didn't get Brexit wrong at all.

CMOTDibbler

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is precisely the type of bias the OP is referring to, guilty until proven innocent. Unlike Clinton who apparently is innocent, even after being proven guilty. The reason Trump is going to win is because of the media bias against him. The polls got it wrong on Brexit and I would not be at all surprised if they are wrong on the US election and I am speaking as someone who would vote for Hilary over Donald.

The reason I would vote for Hilary is because QE has set up the US economy for the greatest depression in history and I think the democrats should stay on to clean up their own mess.

If a request to a poster to back up sweeping statements is bias, you imply that nobody here can ask that question of anyone and this forum just becomes a shouting match.

Trump didn't start with a media bias against him. He's managed to create it from the moment he won the nomination. If he could have managed a modicum of self control (as many of his now fired advisers wanted him to), he'd still have at least Fox News on his side. But he's even alienated them.

When he incites his rallies against the media he creates a culture of fear and ultimately loathing amongst the media who have to endure outright hostility up to the point of violence when they attend them.

CMOTDibbler

wes wrote: »

Except the polls didn't. Brexit was leading for several weeks. Remain only moved ahead again after the Tommy Mair terror attack. The polls right before the vote only had a very narrow remain win, which was well within the margin of error. So the polls didn't get Brexit wrong at all.

There was one poll on the eve of the vote that showed a ten point lead for remain. But that was an online poll and should have been heavily discounted. At the time I remember thinking that it might have a negative effect to the remain vote: galvanising the leave vote and creating apathy amongst remain voters.

That's the only real danger that Clinton faces. If voters believe that she'll win anyway, some may not turn out to cast their votes.

Christy42

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There was one poll on the eve of the vote that showed a ten point lead for remain. But that was an online poll and should have been heavily discounted. At the time I remember thinking that it might have a negative effect to the remain vote: galvanising the leave vote and creating apathy amongst remain voters.

That's the only real danger that Clinton faces. If voters believe that she'll win anyway, some may not turn out to cast their votes.

She should have a strong ground game. The down ballot races may also help with this. Not soenthing to be taken for granted though.

Overheal

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is precisely the type of bias the OP is referring to, guilty until proven innocent. Unlike Clinton who apparently is innocent, even after being proven guilty. The reason Trump is going to win is because of the media bias against him. The polls got it wrong on Brexit and I would not be at all surprised if they are wrong on the US election and I am speaking as someone who would vote for Hilary over Donald.

The reason I would vote for Hilary is because QE has set up the US economy for the greatest depression in history and I think the democrats should stay on to clean up their own mess.

If you assume Trumps reputation for telling the truth was a clean slate when he announced his campaign you might think that way. But, he's been lying through his teeth to the media for decades and they know it. In 2011 for example it was the whole birther movement. Then there was the black tenants thing, the polish workers thing, the immigrant workers in hotels thing, the Atlantic City thing. He's got a long and colored history that carried with him into this election.

Timberrrrrrrr

News conference live on sky news now

Another woman comes forward and accusesee Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct

dissed doc

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

News conference live on sky news now

Another woman comes forward and accusesee Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct

I wonder, does Trump lose more republican votes for having sex assault accusations, compared to Hillary losing Democrat votes for legally defending her rapist husband.

The moral question of 2016. So far it looks like the Republicans have the higher moral ground.

It certainly explains the tolerance by Democrats of Clintons transgressions, compared to the apparently lesser tolerance of Republicans for Trump's.

.

alastair

dissed doc wrote: »

I wonder, does Trump lose more republican votes for having sex assault accusations, compared to Hillary losing Democrat votes for legally defending her rapist husband.

The moral question of 2016. So far it looks like the Republicans have the higher moral ground.

It certainly explains the tolerance by Democrats of Clintons transgressions, compared to the apparently lesser tolerance of Republicans for Trump's.

.

Bill Clinton hasn't raped anyone. Which helps in tolerating his transgressions.

Overheal

dissed doc wrote: »

I wonder, does Trump lose more republican votes for having sex assault accusations, compared to Hillary losing Democrat votes for legally defending her rapist husband.

The moral question of 2016. So far it looks like the Republicans have the higher moral ground.

It certainly explains the tolerance by Democrats of Clintons transgressions, compared to the apparently lesser tolerance of Republicans for Trump's.

.

The former case. The history of the Clinton's is not news, and her supporters are for the most part already aware of it. Those who aren't probably aren't paying much attention anyway..

dissed doc

alastair wrote: »

Bill Clinton hasn't raped anyone. Which helps in tolerating his transgressions.

ANd the accusations against Trump are just accusations. No court cases or investigations, unlike Clinton and her husband.

So - is an accusation with investigation worse for Trump, than accusation AND investigation worse for Clinton.

Amazingly tolerant. No wonder they call them liberals.

Paul Jones was a sex assault case, that ended in an out of course settlement for Bill Clinton, defended by his lawyer wife.

Remind me are the Trump cases trumped up for media? Or we at the same level of tolerance as the Clinton's got?

Overheal

dissed doc wrote: »

ANd the accusations against Trump are just accusations. No court cases or investigations, unlike Clinton and her husband.

So - is an accusation with investigation worse for Trump, than accusation AND investigation worse for Clinton.

Amazingly tolerant. No wonder they call them liberals.

Paul Jones was a sex assault case, that ended in an out of course settlement for Bill Clinton, defended by his lawyer wife.

Remind me are the Trump cases trumped up for media? Or we at the same level of tolerance as the Clinton's got?

No court cases??

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-to-head-to-court-in-december-for-allegedly-tying-up-and-raping-a-13-year-old-girl-report/

False..

alastair

dissed doc wrote: »

ANd the accusations against Trump are just accusations.

Confirmed on tape by the man himself, of course.

dissed doc wrote: »

No court cases or investigations, unlike Clinton and her husband.

Hillary Clinton was in court on sexual assault charges? I certainly know Bill Clinton has never been convicted of any sexual assault charge, but this news about Hillary passed me by.

dissed doc wrote: »

So - is an accusation with investigation worse for Trump, than accusation AND investigation worse for Clinton.

Well, Trump is before the courts soon, as opposed to the other woman's husband, who has never been found guilty of any charge following investigations. I'd have to say the guy who admitted to sexual assault comes out worse than the wife of the guy who didn't.

dissed doc wrote: »

Amazingly tolerant. No wonder they call them liberals.

As I've already said - it's easy enough to tolerate unfounded claims.

dissed doc wrote: »

Paul Jones was a sex assault case, that ended in an out of course settlement for Bill Clinton, defended by his lawyer wife.

So, no proof of any wrong-doing in that regard.

dissed doc wrote: »

Remind me are the Trump cases trumped up for media? Or we at the same level of tolerance as the Clinton's got?

No idea if all the women's claims are legitimate, but the fact that the guy admitted he did this stuff doesn't really dissuade from the suspicion they are. Bill Clinton wasn't exactly the recipient of great tolerance for his actual (consensual) sexual shenanigans, so not too sure what point you're trying to make.

Billy86

dissed doc wrote: »

I wonder, does Trump lose more republican votes for having sex assault accusations, compared to Hillary losing Democrat votes for legally defending her rapist husband.

The moral question of 2016. So far it looks like the Republicans have the higher moral ground.

It certainly explains the tolerance by Democrats of Clintons transgressions, compared to the apparently lesser tolerance of Republicans for Trump's.

.

You appear to be lost in your own alternate reality, or just woefully uninformed of the facts that you have been informed about multiple times on these threads. Bill Clinton isn't running for office and was never convicted of rape, which you knew already, nor does he have any trials set that I am aware of.

Meanwhile, Trump does have a court date coming up in a few weeks for raping an actual child, and likely has dozens more like it on the way to add to the 3,500 lawsuits he has been involved in. For comparison, fellow high profile multi billionaire businessman Mark Cuban has been in less than 10.

BorneTobyWilde

And what if Trump played this game. What if he had some guy come forward and say Hilary tried to force herself on him. He could play this games she's playing.

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

And what if Trump played this game. What if he had some guy come forward and say Hilary tried to force herself on him. He could play this games she's playing.

1. You're assuming it's a game, without any suggestion or evidence to support that belief.

2. He could invent such a claim, but is it likely to be remotely plausible? Has Hillary been caught boasting about dick grabbing unsuspecting young fellah's? Spot the distinctions?