The biased Media vs Trump!

InTheTrees

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.

I'm not following how this is Hillary's fault?

Trump boasts about molesting women and then the women come forward and confirm it.

How is this Hillary playing a game?

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm not following how this is Hillary's fault?

Trump boasts about molesting women and then the women come forward and confirm it.

How is this Hillary playing a game?

Maybe he doesn't see the distinction because he knows he dragged Bill's accusers out into the media himself.



He must assume Hillary is doing the same. He assumes everyone is as insane as he is.

Water John

Someone is very keen to disrupt the online reporting of the US election on 'The Guardian' today.
Wonder who that could be?

Water John

Much wider attack. It's on DYN Inc service provider in New Hampshire, US.

Igotadose

Ooh pesky evil media mistreating the morons that work for Hair Furor. How could those evil libbbbbberalll conglomerate members at that radical left wing anarcho-socialist syndicate telegraph.co.uk do this!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/

Timberrrrrrrr

Trump in 2008 saying Clinton was a great woman and Bill was a great president, Every day it seems that new video's come out of this man embarrassing himself

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WKTIDGMdANI

Billy86

Igotadose wrote: »

Ooh pesky evil media mistreating the morons that work for Hair Furor. How could those evil libbbbbberalll conglomerate members at that radical left wing anarcho-socialist syndicate telegraph.co.uk do this!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/

Can't wait for the hardcore Trumpsters in the US to make blanket claims that the Torygraph is more left wing than MSNBC or the Guardian! :pac:

Seriously though, he's been doing this since the primaries. Pretty astonishing that it has gone largely unmentioned, but then again its more a case of it getting lost in the sea of all his other crap. I've been saying it for months as have others, and Clinton outright said it in the last debate - he's a puppet to foreign power , simple as. An "outsider" if you will.

If they have audio/video of Eric Beach promising the would be Chinese investor "influence" it will be very interesting indeed.

Water John

Does the guy still believe he is winning?

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

Does the guy still believe he is winning?

It's all about the upcoming TV network. Hair Furor's just going through the motions now, he'll need the money from his dopey followers for his legal bills when he stiffs all his campaign employees.

But, apparently he and Hannity are buddies with a former editor of the Weekly World news: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/24/hannity-convinced-former-editor-defunct-tabloid-world-news-daily-worked-fixer-clinton/214085

I can't wait to see the "Batboy for Trump!" posters and the Bigfoot show on TrumpTV. "Sarah Palin, Bigfoot, D. B. Cooper and Michelle Bachman discuss Obamacare and its impact on the lives of the Easter Islanders..."

Water John

May be we should add a programme to the schedule; Donald Duck Off.

B0jangles

Every week they could have a segment where Trump explains away a new scandal, call it "Donald Ducks ______"

Week 1: Donald Ducks Grope Claims
Week 2: Donald Ducks Charity Slush Fund Use

and so on...

Amerika

The supposed Hillary Clinton problem's ‘fixer’ has publicly come out and appeared on Hannity. Jeff Rovin didn’t reveal too much that wasn’t already talked about, but the National Enquirer piece goes much more into detail.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/alleged-clinton-fixer-new-york-times-become-national-enquirer/

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-fixer-unmasked-sean-hannity-fox-news/

A lot of people here in the US consider the National Enquirer to be a rag, but when it comes to politics they have gotten a number of exposes right, such as the John Edwards scandal.

Overheal

Breitbart the latest to be accused of skewing the narrative in order to make Trump the nominee. I guess he wasn't complaining about that.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breitbart-colluded-with-liberal-activist-to-sabotage-trumps-gop-primary-opponents/

8-10

Water John wrote: »

Does the guy still believe he is winning?

I watched the live rally last night in St Augustine and he is clear in believing he is winning. Pointed to the International Business Daily poll as being the most accurate on the past 3 elections and having him as having a 2pt lead overall. I can't see from IBD any breakdown of likelihood of winning each state as a basic poll wouldn't really track electoral colleges but just the popular vote, but he did say that he is now way ahead in Idaho, Ohio and slightly ahead in North Carolina.

What I am completely confused about is how a few moments later he's talking about the election being rigged. Why would you want to claim an election, that you believe you are likely to win, is rigged? What benefit does that give you as somebody leading the polls?

Overheal

Nate Silver in 2009 about the IBD poll

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy/

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

I watched the live rally last night in St Augustine and he is clear in believing he is winning. Pointed to the International Business Daily poll as being the most accurate on the past 3 elections and having him as having a 2pt lead overall. I can't see from IBD any breakdown of likelihood of winning each state as a basic poll wouldn't really track electoral colleges but just the popular vote, but he did say that he is now way ahead in Idaho, Ohio and slightly ahead in North Carolina.

What I am completely confused about is how a few moments later he's talking about the election being rigged. Why would you want to claim an election, that you believe you are likely to win, is rigged? What benefit does that give you as somebody leading the polls?

It Trump wins or loses, he’s still right, the election is rigged. Look at the illegal coordination of efforts between Clinton’s campaign and PAC’s. Or the disgraced Democrat who was forced to resign, and in the pay of the Democratic National Committee and a very frequent visitor to the Obama White House, boasted on tape of disrupting Trump rallies by bought and staged violence. He also boasted of busing non-resident voters into Ohio to affect the vote count, and of other dirty tricks which seem to be longstanding practice for Democrats. And the Justice Department and media remains silent on the matter as apparently to them voting fraud is an act of pride rather than a crime... as long as it helps your preferred candidate. And why not, one of the media's own was caught boasting to a presidential candidate’s team that she new of debate questions in advance and disclosed them to the team. Other 'journalists' seek permission and approval before printing stories or allow the campaign to warp their stories into a fashion that is favorable to Clinton. The mainstream is guilty of attempting to influence the direction of the election. And the DOJ who should be insuring the election is not rigged, actually participates in the election rigging.

And who here believes that if Hillary Clinton loses the election after the email disclosures from WikiLeaks, she won’t be yelling from the rooftops that the election was rigged by the Russians?

K-9

Well Amerika, if you are against the PAC system you really should get behind repealing the Citizens United judgment. People warned about this and for balance, Republicans were exploiting those laws in the primaries as well.

Politicians and lobby groups will take advantage of loopholes, the common denominator is the law and regulations, not what party they are.

In short, people can't be for things like Citizens United and then complain when the other side takes advantage of it.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Well Amerika, if you are against the PAC system you really should get behind repealing the Citizens United judgment. People warned about this and for balance, Republicans were exploiting those laws in the primaries as well.

Politicians and lobby groups will take advantage of loopholes, the common denominator is the law and regulations, not what party they are.

In short, people can't be for things like Citizens United and then complain when the other side takes advantage of it.

Who said I'm against PAC's? I'm against the illegal coordination of PAC's and a candidate's campaign. But if we do get rid of PAC's we'd also have to get rid of unions and the mainstream media who essentially serve as PAC's for the Democratic party. And the NRA who essentially serves as a PAC for the Republicans.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Who said I'm against PAC's? I'm against the illegal coordination of PAC's and a candidate's campaign. But if we do get rid of PAC's we'd also have to get rid of unions and the mainstream media who essentially serve as PAC's for the Democratic party. And the NRA who essentially serves as a PAC for the Republicans.

Just in case anyone missed it today, this poster seems to have no problem with the following:

Donald Trump super PAC solicited money from fake Chinese donor, offered to “whisper” into “Trump’s ear”
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/25/donald-trump-super-pac-solicited-money-from-fake-chinese-donor-offered-to-whisper-into-trumps-ear/

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

I'm against the illegal coordination of PAC's and a candidate's campaign.

Of which there's no evidence, with regard to Clinton's campaign - regardless of your, eh, duck fixation.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Who said I'm against PAC's? I'm against the illegal coordination of PAC's and a candidate's campaign. But if we do get rid of PAC's we'd also have to get rid of unions and the mainstream media who essentially serve as PAC's for the Democratic party. And the NRA who essentially serves as a PAC for the Republicans.

I'd get rid of the hell out of the NRA. Where do I sign?

Lt Dan

The Sunday Times/The Times have a huge provocative poster across from Moran's Hotel on Talbot Street Dublin with a picture of Trump, with the words, "dangerous", "arrogant", "Predator", "unconventional"

Least we know where they stand

Remember the effort people went to in tripping over themselves over Obama? They rejected Hillary during the Democratic run, what changed?

Billy86

Lt Dan wrote: »

The Sunday Times/The Times have a huge provocative poster across from Moran's Hotel on Talbot Street Dublin with a picture of Trump, with the words, "dangerous", "arrogant", "Predator", "unconventional"

Least we know where they stand

Remember the effort people went to in tripping over themselves over Obama? They rejected Hillary during the Democratic run, what changed?

As your post says, what changed was the opposition.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I'd get rid of the hell out of the NRA. Where do I sign?

How powerful do you think the ‘supposed all-powerful’ NRA really is? I know it’s the bogeyman to most on the Left, but did you know the NRA doesn’t even spend as much as the Teachers Unions do on lobbying, and half as much as the dairy industry does? The reason more gun control doesn't happen is because the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE don't want it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying1.png

And while we're talking about the NRA, lets look at a comparison of political donations. Pay close attention to the SEIU and even Planned Parenthood.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying2.png

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

The reason more gun control doesn't happen is because the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE don't want it.

Another one to add to the never ending list of this posters, errr... 'untruths'.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Calina

Amerika wrote: »

How powerful do you think the ‘supposed all-powerful’ NRA really is? I know it’s the bogeyman to most on the Left, but did you know the NRA doesn’t even spend as much as the Teachers Unions do on lobbying, and half as much as the dairy industry does? The reason more gun control doesn't happen is because the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE don't want it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying1.png

When you guys have decent gun control and your death by gun rates have halved, I'll believe the NRA is not all powerful. The killing of five year olds in Sandy Hook was not enough to beat off the lobbying of the NRA.

The majority of the people are clearly stupid from what I can see. You'll agree because more of them want to vote for Clinton. I'll agree because far too many of them want to vote for Trump plus there's that stupid gun rights issue which you tell me people want even in the face of your mass shooting statistics which are extra terrestrial they are so much of an outlier compared to other allegedly modern economies. QED.

Amerika

Calina wrote: »

When you guys have decent gun control and your death by gun rates have halved, I'll believe the NRA is not all powerful. The killing of five year olds in Sandy Hook was not enough to beat off the lobbying of the NRA.

The majority of the people are clearly stupid from what I can see. You'll agree because more of them want to vote for Clinton. I'll agree because far too many of them want to vote for Trump plus there's that stupid gun rights issue which you tell me people want even in the face of your mass shooting statistics which are extra terrestrial they are so much of an outlier compared to other allegedly modern economies. QED.

I believe we might actually have more private guns than citizens in the US at this point. I contend the fact that our violent gun crimes as a percentage to the total number of guns in private hands being so miniscule is rather remarkable, and a clear indication that people AREN'T stupid.

Billy86

Calina wrote: »

When you guys have decent gun control and your death by gun rates have halved, I'll believe the NRA is not all powerful. The killing of five year olds in Sandy Hook was not enough to beat off the lobbying of the NRA.

The majority of the people are clearly stupid from what I can see. You'll agree because more of them want to vote for Clinton. I'll agree because far too many of them want to vote for Trump plus there's that stupid gun rights issue which you tell me people want even in the face of your mass shooting statistics which are extra terrestrial they are so much of an outlier compared to other allegedly modern economies. QED.

John owns 20 guns. John shoots 20 of his neighbours with his favourite pistol one day. That's ok, nothing to see here, only one of those 20 guns shot anyone! Leave the other 19 guns alone!!

:rolleyes:

Calina

Amerika wrote: »

I believe we might actually have more private guns than citizens in the US at this point. I contend the fact that our violent gun crimes as a percentage to the total number of guns in private hands being so miniscule is rather remarkable, and a clear indication that people AREN'T stupid.

Really? Given the number of kids who accidentally kill people with guns?

Look. I don't care what you contend. But your firearms related death rates are not miniscule in per capita terms compared to other countries. The only place in Europe that even comes close to you is probably Finland who, while they don't have a second amendment, do have similar views about the right to hold guns.

What you are saying is that people get killed with guns and that's alright because that's a price to pay for having guns. Guns matter more than people being killed.

And that was the underlying point of what I said about NRA power because the US is prepared to accept the shooting dead of kids in infant schools as a price that is adequate for the right to bear arms. And the only way you can possibly think that is because the NRA keeps feeding that narrative.

In that context, I find it hilarious that you guys talk about the media being biased against Trump. You're just not equipped to realise just how much of a free run he has gotten. If the media weren't biased in favour of Trump, your candidate might be someone competent. And tbh, I'd quite like that not because I dislike Hillary Clinton one way or the other but you have had 8 years of Democratic presidency and it is not good that a country stultifies in political terms.

Billy86

Calina wrote: »

Look. I don't care what you contend. But your firearms related death rates are not miniscule in per capita terms compared to other countries.

Yep, there's another to add to Amerika's long list on "untruths"

PEr capita firearm related deaths by country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US can take pride in being lower down the list than the likes of Jamaica, El Savador, Colombia and Brazil. And hey look, they're only noticeably higher than the Philippines, South Africa, Paraguay and Mexico. "Miniscule"

Again, :rolleyes: - so many... "untruths"