The biased Media vs Trump!

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I guess my response to that should be... Better than Hillary exploiting the Haiti earthquake in order to steal billions of dollars from the sick and starving people. See... Everyone can play that game.

Reported.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

But talking policy for once (something Hillary seems to be incapable of doing)... Reforming the tax code and trade policies to make it easier to hire, invest, build, grow, produce, and manufacture in America. Renegotiate NAFTA, cut unneeded regulations and make America a place businesses want to do business. Keep illegal aliens out. Use our vast coal, shale gas, and other American energy sources in a clean and appropriate manner to benefit American families and workers. These and other policies will keep jobs and wealth in America and into the pocketbook of the average Joe. What does Hillary propose to achieve that?

Invest in manufacturing ($10 billion in funding toward “Make it in America Partnerships”)
Invest in clean energy - massive market for job creation if US can become a world power
Raise minimum wage to $15/hr (Trump proposes $10)
Tax credit for businesses for every apprentice they hire (suits Trump's TV show?)
Invest in skills-training and on-the job training
Equal pay for women
No tax breaks for companies who export jobs outside the USA
Encourage profit sharing schemes for employees
Expand overtime rules to more workers
Reject TPP
Restore collective bargaining for unions
Paid maternity leave up to 12 weeks (Trump is 6 weeks), and paid leave to support sick family members
Protect retirement benefits

There are details behind each of these, I'm just summarizing.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I guess my response to that should be... Better than Hillary exploiting the Haiti earthquake in order to steal billions of dollars from the sick and starving people. See... Everyone can play that game.

I suppose that's why I haven't heard many arguments here that defend Hillary's character. Come off it. That's just more deflection.

But talking policy for once (something Hillary seems to be incapable of doing)...

ha?

Reforming the tax code and trade policies to make it easier to hire, invest, build, grow, produce, and manufacture in America. Renegotiate NAFTA, cut unneeded regulations and make America a place businesses want to do business. Keep illegal aliens out. Use our vast coal, shale gas, and other American energy sources in a clean and appropriate manner to benefit American families and workers. These and other policies will keep jobs and wealth in America and into the pocketbook of the average Joe. What does Hillary propose to achieve that?

I suppose it doesn't make a difference to you that our economy relies on migrant labor and migrant expertise; Or that economists have already blasted his so-called economics plan as a great way to destroy it. His tax and budget plan lines the pockets of top earners and puts the country in trillions of dollars of additional debt.

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

Invest in manufacturing ($10 billion in funding toward “Make it in America Partnerships”)
Invest in clean energy - massive market for job creation if US can become a world power
Raise minimum wage to $15/hr (Trump proposes $10)
Tax credit for businesses for every apprentice they hire (suits Trump's TV show?)
Invest in skills-training and on-the job training
Equal pay for women
No tax breaks for companies who export jobs outside the USA
Encourage profit sharing schemes for employees
Expand overtime rules to more workers
Reject TPP
Restore collective bargaining for unions
Paid maternity leave up to 12 weeks (Trump is 6 weeks), and paid leave to support sick family members
Protect retirement benefits

There are details behind each of these, I'm just summarizing.

Most of those seem to be job killers, higher cost factors to employers, and/or increase taxes on everyone, which takes more money out of the pockets of the average Joe. And let's face it... she is rejecting TTP NOW, just to get elected. She'll change her mind on that 'GOLD STANDARD' (as she has called it) if she gets into office, IMO.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

Most of those seem to be job killers, higher cost factors to employers, and/or increase taxes on everyone, which takes more money out of the pockets of the average Joe. And let's face it... she is rejecting TTP NOW, just to get elected. She'll change her mind on that 'GOLD STANDARD' (as she has called it) if she gets into office, IMO.

In fairness those are actual policies and not like these:

make America a place businesses want to do business

Reforming the tax code

cut unneeded regulations

Can you give some policy bulletpoints behind these? What regulations are being cut? How we incentivize doing business in American? Which tax changes?

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

In fairness those are actual policies and not like these:



Can you give some policy bulletpoints behind these? What regulations are being cut? How we incentivize doing business in American? Which tax changes?

I’ll let you read them right from the horse’s mouth…
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/economy/
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy/
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/regulations/

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Most of those seem to be job killers, higher cost factors to employers, and/or increase taxes on everyone, which takes more money out of the pockets of the average Joe. And let's face it... she is rejecting TTP NOW, just to get elected. She'll change her mind on that 'GOLD STANDARD' (as she has called it) if she gets into office, IMO.

Higher costs for employers likely equates to other jobs supported.

And please stop recycling talking points. Gold standard really?

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

Most of those seem to be job killers, higher cost factors to employers, and/or increase taxes on everyone, which takes more money out of the pockets of the average Joe.

Equal pay for women is one close to my heart as is the paid parental leave which America should be embarrassed about not having, even 12 weeks is sickly low. I'm not seeing anything about women's pay on Trumps website links there (thanks for sharing) as of yet....still perusing it. Paid leave seems to be in the form of being able to collect unemployment benefit for 6 weeks for Trump, is that it? And is it just for women?

I see this quote on his website from what you shared:

Provide 6 weeks of paid leave to new mothers before returning to work.

What about fathers? Typo or is his policy for the mother's only??

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Higher costs for employers likely equates to other jobs supported.

No, higher costs for employers usually equates to a reduction in jobs.

And please stop recycling talking points. Gold standard really?

Ill let you hear it right from the horse's mouth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLQzeCoNnA

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

Equal pay for women is one close to my heart as is the paid parental leave which America should be embarrassed about not having, even 12 weeks is sickly low. I'm not seeing anything about women's pay on Trumps website links there (thanks for sharing) as of yet....still perusing it. Paid leave seems to be in the form of being able to collect unemployment benefit for 6 weeks for Trump, is that it? And is it just for women?

I see this quote on his website from what you shared:



What about fathers? Typo or is his policy for the mother's only??

Equal pay for women should not be an issue in the election since it’s been law since 1963, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963


(and it is a known fact Hillary pays women less than men for doing the same job.)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/news/clinton-paid-women-less/

I don’t know if it’s a typo or not, but paid maternity leave should only be for the mother, IMO.

I’m not saying Trump has everything right. I disagree with some of his proposals, but the thought of Hillary becoming POTUS forces me to support Trump at this juncture.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

Equal pay for women should not be an issue in the election since it’s been law since 1963, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

You don't think it's an issue today? It's been resolved for 50 years with pay equal ever since? That's what you're saying?

(and it is a known fact Hillary pays women less than men for doing the same job.)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/news/clinton-paid-women-less/

So it is an issue then?

I don’t know if it’s a typo or not, but paid maternity leave should only be for the mother, IMO.

It should be for both, parental leave not 'maternity' leave...it gets called maternity but it's widely referring to both parents in this day and age. There's no way you think only women should get parental leave?

I’m not saying Trump has everything right. I disagree with some of his proposals, but the thought of Hillary becoming POTUS forces me to support Trump at this juncture.

I respect that, I have pretty much the same position with candidates reversed!

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

You don't think it's an issue today? It's been resolved for 50 years with pay equal ever since? That's what you're saying?



So it is an issue then?

The issue is the law, already on the books, should be followed. Any candidate claiming to be a champion of equal pay is misleading at best. What they should be championing is adherence to the law. But kinda hard to do when you break the law yourselves.

It should be for both, parental leave not 'maternity' leave...it gets called maternity but it's widely referring to both parents in this day and age. There's no way you think only women should get parental leave?

I'll amend my position. Maternity leave should be given to one parent, be it a man or a woman, but not both.

I respect that, I have pretty much the same position with candidates reversed!

And I respect your right to be wrong on the candidates. :P

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

The issue is the law, already on the books, should be followed. Any candidate claiming to be a champion of equal pay is misleading at best. What they should be championing is adherence to the law. But kinda hard to do when you break the law yourselves.

No evidence that the Clinton Foundation broke any laws regarding the payment of their executives. If a couple of senior positions, with higher salaries, were held by men, rather than women, it would account for the salary discrepancy between the two genders in that small number of staff.

Hillary's core platform regarding the gender pay gap appears to be based on the Paycheck Fairness Act, extending paid maternity/paternity leave, and increased support for childcare services - which shouldn't offend anyone interested in fairness.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

I'll amend my position. Maternity leave should be given to one parent, be it a man or a woman, but not both.

Which is Hillary's policy - given to the primary caregiver regardless of gender. Trump is just for women.

But as you say you can't agree with all of his policies!

Overheal

Trump is planning his own propaganda machine after all

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/casting-notice-goes-out-for-new-up-and-coming-conservative-news-network.amp.html?client=safari

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Trump is planning his own propaganda machine after all

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/casting-notice-goes-out-for-new-up-and-coming-conservative-news-network.amp.html?client=safari

If not Trump then I hope someone else starts up another conservative news channel. We need competition for FoxNews. FN isn’t the same since Roger Ailes’ departure and the channel has become rather lackluster as of late. There is some young new conservative talent out there and older stalwarts that deserve a larger media presence.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

If not Trump then I hope someone else starts up another conservative news channel. We need competition for FoxNews. FN isn’t the same since Roger Ailes’ departure and the channel has become rather lackluster as of late. There is some young new conservative talent out there and older stalwarts that deserve a larger media presence.

By lackluster you mean no more leg cam?

BorneTobyWilde

Really starting to look like a Rocky type come back for Trump.
Hillary is on the ropes , while Trump looks stronger every minute.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

By lackluster you mean no more leg cam?

I wouldn’t be adverse to more leg cam. A lot of conservative women are mighty hot. But it's their brains that are really hot. :P

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Really starting to look like a Rocky type come back for Trump.
Hillary is on the ropes , while Trump looks stronger every minute.

Yep. And like Rocky, he'll lose to the more able opponent.

Amerika

Love her or hate her, Ann Coulter is entertaining. This time she takes on the media’s bias towards Trump and their blinders towards Clinton. You can dislike the way she uses a smash mouth manner to get her points across, but you can't legitimately argue against the points she makes.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-11-02.html

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Love her or hate her, Ann Coulter is entertaining. This time she takes on the media’s bias towards Trump and their blinders towards Clinton. You can dislike the way she uses a smash mouth manner to get her points across, but you can't legitimately argue against the points she makes.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-11-02.html

David Duke: Ann Coulter is ‘Very Close to What I’ve Been Saying’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-duke-ann-coulter-is-very-close-to-what-ive-been-saying/

“Ann Coulter is so savaged by the media, I guess she’s gotta feel like, ‘Well, at least I’m not David Duke!'” he said. “But if you really look at what she says, if you read her books, it’s very close to what I’ve been saying.”

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

David Duke: Ann Coulter is ‘Very Close to What I’ve Been Saying’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-duke-ann-coulter-is-very-close-to-what-ive-been-saying/

“Ann Coulter is so savaged by the media, I guess she’s gotta feel like, ‘Well, at least I’m not David Duke!'” he said. “But if you really look at what she says, if you read her books, it’s very close to what I’ve been saying.”

That’s your argument???

The current KKK Grand Wizard Will Quigg stated: “We want Hillary Clinton to win.” Does that prove Hillary is the candidate of the KKK?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

That’s your argument???

Well,

"You can dislike the way she uses a smash mouth manner to get her points across, but you can't legitimately argue against the points she makes."

Thats yours. Mine is actually backed up.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well,

"You can dislike the way she uses a smash mouth manner to get her points across, but you can't legitimately argue against the points she makes."

Thats yours. Mine is actually backed up.

So you’re giving credence and legitimacy to the KKK, regardless of how untrue the statement made is, merely because it supports some contention of yours? I always thought better of you.

Water John

Wonder how Bridgegate will be reported? Touch of the Laurel and Hardy; 'Another fine mess you've gotten me into.'

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So you’re giving credence and legitimacy to the KKK, regardless of how untrue the statement made is, merely because it supports some contention of yours? I always thought better of you.

Is this better?

http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW%202-007%20-%20Racist%20Rhetoric%20of%20Ann%20Coulter.pdf

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Is this better?

http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW%202-007%20-%20Racist%20Rhetoric%20of%20Ann%20Coulter.pdf

Sorry, got only through a couple of sentances of that biased woman-hating website before I had to stop reading in disgust.

“Constitutional scholar” Ann Coulter could happily promote modern-day versions of Dredd Scott and Jim Crow – all in the name of liberty!"

What a load of CRAP!

Let’s see what Ann Coulter actually says about David Duke... and similar ilk that the democrats love.

For decades now, the most important job of anyone covering a presidential election is to unceasingly demand that the Republican candidate disavow David Duke. This laughably irrelevant man must be trotted out as a bogeyman to frighten NPR listeners. Instead of reporting news, journalists have become Official David Duke Disavowal Demanders.

The only way we find out that Duke is still alive is that Republicans are asked to denounce him every four years. For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double.

Will Hillary ever be asked to "disavow" Al Sharpton, George Soros, Black Lives Matter or Colin Kaepernick? These are people who have power and visibility even when it's not an election year. In fact, the only time some of them are not in the public eye is during election years, when, for example, Al Sharpton is sent off to a safe house for six months. By contrast, the only time Duke is in the news is during election years.

It doesn't matter who the candidate is -- the GOP could run Bobby Kennedy, and journalists would incessantly demand that Bobby "disavow" Duke.

The same people who move heaven and earth to make sure their kids aren't blocked out of the right colleges by affirmative action, who couldn't care less about the astronomical unemployment rate and rampant crime in the inner cities, who think there's a lovefest going on between African-Americans and the illegal aliens taking over their neighborhoods and jobs, are just showing off to other white people by calling Trump ... "RACIST!”

Donald Trump has never been accused of racism in his life. Unlike self-righteous PC enforcers, who go to extraordinary lengths to avoid extensive contact with blacks, he's hired lots of black people. His golf clubs famously admit blacks, Jews and Asians -- and are often the only clubs in town that do.

Black celebrities as well as ordinary black Americans all say the same thing about Trump -- that he respects them.

Jamiel Shaw, whose son was killed by an illegal alien, spoke at Trump's first presidential rally, saying: "He's the kind of man you would want to be your dad. He's a nice guy. He put himself out there for black people. I know I can trust him.”


I kinda don't think David Duke would be saying the same things. Do you?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I kinda don't think David Duke would be saying the same things. Do you?

Was that from her book?

and yes I'm sure your delicate sensibilities were affronted by "woman-hating" - you're voting for Donald Trump, right?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, got only through a couple of sentances of that biased woman-hating website before I had to stop reading in disgust.

These are people who have power and visibility even when it's not an election year. In fact, the only time some of them are not in the public eye is during election years, when, for example, Al Sharpton is sent off to a safe house for six months

No harm in woman-hating, if that specific woman is Ann Coulter - a cartoon bigot of the highest order.

And, as usual, she's full of it. Hillary spoke at the National Action Network convention in April. Photo opps ensued.