The biased Media vs Trump!

Overheal

Sometimes there's a greater gain to challenge someone to think critically than to get their answer. In this case given the latter makes no sense I must assume the former is involved in some degree of mental gymnastics.

Brian?

Watching Fox news. The only mention of Hillary in the last 30 minutes were soundbites from Trump.

Now back to a Trump event in NC.

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

Watching Fox news. The only mention of Hillary in the last 30 minutes were soundbites from Trump.

Now back to a Trump event in NC.

He's been there the last few days and Pence both hard this whole weekend. They're determined not to lose The Bathroom State.

KingBrian2

wonderfullife wrote: »

"Trumps position" is the biggest oxymoron i've ever seen.

The man doesn't have positions or policies on anything. He has soundbites and chants.

For the record, his "position" is to decimate the new world order which has held tight for decades since the 2nd World War. His "position" is the same on every other part of his life - "pay me enough money and i'll be/do whatever you want".

He wants Japan to pay billions more to the U.S. for the upkeep of the American military, which since the 1950's onwards has cost a fortune because they kept starting wars with disastrous shady deals equipping factions and rebels across the trouble spots of the world.

Non-interventionist or interventionist is largely irrelevant. There may not even be a world to intervene in with crackpots like Trump, Kim-Jong, Assad in power not to mention Putin who is worse than a crackpot in that he's a cold, ruthless, intelligent man with a plan.

The Democrats and Republicans caused the mess. They had 8 years to sort it out and they did not deliver. Washington has let down millions of hard working Americans. Congress is broken and the political rivalry existed long before Trump came along. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party came before him and she was talking a lot of about what he is saying, gvt abuse and disregard. Today the drone wars are ongoing and the budget situation in America is still looking very bad. All that remains the case after the historical election of President Obama. All of the people who supported Bush jr have suddenly regrouped around Hillary.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't forget you're engaging the same poster who claimed Trumps "complete and total shutdown" on Muslims entering the US showed he was "all for religious tolerance". While claiming he didn't mean all Muslims because he doesn't see Muslims as the problem/enemy, and then to a different poster claimed that Trump was right because Muslims are the problem/enemy.

Edit: I'll leave it at that actually...

You can pick words out of what people say and create a portrayal of someone that suits you but is not accurate. I've always been of the view that Islam in America and in Europe is indeed in a bad way. Islamic converts going off to fight jihad and burning their citizenship as in Canada when a group of Islamists targeted the Parliament. Homophobia and racism linked to radical Islam, the attack in Orlando Florida and going further back the execution style killing of a Dutch artist. Yeah the people who claim to be Islamic have a lot to answer for as do those that promote invasions and bombings in Muslim lands which I also disagree with.

Nabber

America like all nation should have the right to ban whom they like. Not good for trade deals but still your right.

There is currently an oppressed part of society which has no champions of their defence, white Christians, in particular white Christian males.

I don't think Trump is that champion, but judging by his followers, who are in agreement with his sentiments, it's an issue America needs to face. Like muslims as MSM says only a fraction are extremists, then we can apply the same to Trump and by default Hillary that only a fraction of their supporters are extremists. So what does that leave the a USA with?
Who knows, history would say war. If judging by White history, when oppressed the revolt leads to the most violent conflicts this planet has ever seen.

I'm not racist, but I'm against open boarders with countries that don't share core beliefs.

It will be an interesting election, I think the only fear Clinton has now is first time voters. Too hard to poll and it was something Thrump propelled his campaign on in the Primaries

Overheal

White Christians have no champion?? What about FOX?

http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/war-christmas

TheOven

Overheal wrote: »

White Christians have no champion?? What about FOX?

http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/war-christmas

And the entire GOP party.

Rjd2

Overheal wrote: »

How can he possibly be non intervionist? I'm genuinely not buying this.



That's his stump on the military. Nothing about non intervionism; says we will defeat ISIS and will do it quickly. How is this accomplished without intervention?

Yeah if your main concern is basically non interventionism then you probably need to look to Johnson or Stein. Trump as you say has talked quite macho about war and heck even once declared "he loves war".

He also is in the more hawkish of the two parties, heck bar Rand Paul most of the republican debates were dominated by how tough they would be on overseas terrorism.

The one thing however about Trump in power is that everything he does will be scrutinised in incredible detail, he will have a hostile media who will mobilise the masses in protesting any crazy overseas campaign that he may decide on which when you consider how much he flips his positions is somewhat reassuring.

I suspect with Clinton the masses will spend the next 4 years relatively oblivious to her overseas policies as they have done for Obama however and sadly less critical.

Overheal

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah if your main concern is basically non interventionism then you probably need to look to Johnson or Stein. Trump as you say has talked quite macho about war and heck even once declared "he loves war".

He also is in the more hawkish of the two parties, heck bar Rand Paul most of the republican debates were dominated by how tough they would be on overseas terrorism.

The one thing however about Trump in power is that everything he does will be scrutinised in incredible detail, he will have a hostile media who will mobilise the masses in protesting any crazy overseas campaign that he may decide on which when you consider how much he flips his positions is somewhat reassuring.

I suspect with Clinton the masses will spend the next 4 years relatively oblivious to her overseas policies as they have done for Obama however and sadly less critical.

No fox and trump tv will label her the villain every night

oscarBravo

Nabber wrote: »

There is currently an oppressed part of society which has no champions of their defence, white Christians, in particular white Christian males.

Absolutely. If there's one demographic that has has a truly appalling time of it for the last two millennia, it's white Christian males. We can only live in hope that some day they'll rise up and cast off the yoke of oppression imposed by...

...

...hang on, who is it that's oppressing white Christian males, again? I can never remember.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nabber wrote: »

There is currently an oppressed part of society which has no champions of their defence, white Christians, in particular white Christian males.

Absolutely. If there's one demographic that has has a truly appalling time of it for the last two millennia, it's white Christian males. We can only live in hope that some day they'll rise up and cast off the yoke of oppression imposed by...

...

...hang on, who is it that's oppressing white Christian males, again? I can never remember.

Democrats and their corrupt legion -- the mainstream media, of course. Where have you been?

K-9

Trump seems to be bringing out first time voters all right, Latinos!

Amerika

A most poignant article regarding the media's demise into corruption in this election, totally broken, and why they may never regain American trust.

An excerpt:

When a political media does its job, when journalists hold government ethically accountable, the result is an honest, well-adjusted government. And while I can't speak for every locality, at the federal level, this is just not happening. Tragically, our national media now sees itself as part of the government, and as a consequence, the media's mission to hold institutions accountable has been dropped entirely in favor of relentless agenda-pushing.

Even more insidious is the coordination. Across a vast landscape that includes, but is not limited to ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCPBSNPRPoliticoWashingtonPostLosAngelesTimesESPNUnivisionNewYorkTimesBostonGlobe, all the same stories are covered in the same way (if you disagree, watch the ABCCNNCBSNBC Sunday shows): central government is not suspect, it is good; Democrats are virtuous, multiculturalism trumps e pluribus unum, and anyone who disagrees is backwards, selfish, and racist.

The elite media has accomplished this through its own professional blacklist. If you are a journalist who does not subscribe to this, you are Out, and even that is not enough. As a capital "J" journalist or pundit (this includes most every so-called conservative employed in the elite media), you must prove yourself by using the approved language ("undocumented immigrant") and the approved approach towards those who do not hold the approved opinions (Christianity=bigotry, border security=racism, refusal to violate your religious conscience=hate).

Moreover, not covered by this fiercely-policed clique are stories that contradict the media's over-arching agenda. And by "covered" I do not mean rote coverage. One of the most dishonest tactics the media engages in is pushing back against critics by pointing to page 11 or a 30-second cable news segment from last Tuesday. This, when we all know that the only thing that matters is what the media focuses on -- The Narrative.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10555/how-political-medias-corruption-destroyed-americas-john-nolte

Brian?

To sum up.

If the media reports what Trump has said verbatim, the media is biased against Trump. They should be reading between the lines and finding a meaning that doesn't mean Trump is a racist demagogue.

If the media reports what Clinton has said verbatim, the media is biased against Trump. They should be reading between the lines and accepting any and all accusations against Hillary as true, plus she's a liar anyway.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

To sum up.

If the media reports what Trump has said verbatim, the media is biased against Trump. They should be reading between the lines and finding a meaning that doesn't mean Trump is a racist demagogue.

If the media reports what Clinton has said verbatim, the media is biased against Trump. They should be reading between the lines and accepting any and all accusations against Hillary as true, plus she's a liar anyway.

Rather sad if that's all you see.

TheOven

I remember when Trump was a genius for getting all that free advertising from the media. In fact it was even part of his plan!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/trump-i-get-so-much-publicity-224076

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Rather sad if that's all you see.

That's what I seen in this thread.

I've said all along that the media is biased against Trump, with good reason. He's a terrible candidate and a worse human being.

Rjd2

Overheal wrote: »

No fox and trump tv will label her the villain every night

Of course, but the likes of NYT, Huffington Post, The Atlantic and others who are clearly in the pocket of Clinton, can we trust them to criticise Clinton when she needs to be? Doubtful and that is very worrying.

NIMAN

I have to say listening to Today FM's Last Word throughout this campaign, that Matt Cooper is shockingly poor at being unbiased.

Its quite clear he hates Trump.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

I have to say listening to Today FM's Last Word throughout this campaign, that Matt Cooper is shockingly poor at being unbiased.

Why shouldn't he be biased? I'd be shocked if he were even trying. There's absolutely no need for an Irish journalist to be biased about an election taking place in the USA, no more than in Afghanistan.

NIMAN

I always thought journos were meant to present both sides of the debate and try to be neutral.

InTheTrees

NIMAN wrote: »

I have to say listening to Today FM's Last Word throughout this campaign, that Matt Cooper is shockingly poor at being unbiased.

A segment named "Last Word" sounds like an opinion piece doesnt it?

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

I always thought journos were meant to present both sides of the debate and try to be neutral.

Really? Did you never hear of opinion pieces?

There is a legal requirement for certain media to fairly apportion airtime and publicity in respect of domestic elections. There is absolutely no requirement to do so in respect of foreign elections.

In fact, there's no reason why a privately owned media outlet can't take an editorial stand on any foreign election. People vote with their dials, and I don't believe anyone is going to suffer a noticeable drop in listenership by openly disagreeing with Trump's idiocy.

764dak

It was hilarious watching the news panelists and political experts trying to make excuses when they realized Trump would win easily.

CMOTDibbler

764dak wrote: »

It was hilarious watching the news panelists and political experts trying to make excuses when they realized Trump would win easily.

I wouldn't say 'easily'. It was close enough. So close that it looks like he lost the popular vote. He won Florida by just over 120k votes, Pennsylvania by half that. Michigan isn't fully in yet and there's only 13k votes or so in it.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He won Florida by just over 120k votes,

That's closer than Obama's lead over Romney in Florida last year. And needless to say it's about 119,000 more than GWB's lead over Gore in 2000.

It wasn't a tight race. A lead of 120,000 in Florida when it was expected to go Hillary's way is not a close thing, it is a major victory. He won it easily

recedite

Can we now declare Trump the winner in The biased Media vs Trump competition?

But please note there are no losers here. The meeja are all saying that it was the polls that were wrong, not the meeja. And people must have lied when they were being polled. The meeja were "misled" into all that biased reporting :pac:

alastair

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's closer than Obama's lead over Romney in Florida last year. And needless to say it's about 119,000 more than GWB's lead over Gore in 2000.

It wasn't a tight race. A lead of 120,000 in Florida when it was expected to go Hillary's way is not a close thing, it is a major victory. He won it easily

It was a tight race. A two percent swing to Hillary would have had her win the electoral college vote, as well as the popular vote. Neither of them managed to turn out a convincing vote though.

Mantis Toboggan

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fact, there's no reason why a privately owned media outlet can't take an editorial stand on any foreign election. People vote with their dials, and I don't believe anyone is going to suffer a noticeable drop in listenership by openly disagreeing with Trump's idiocy.

Especially media owned by Denis O'brien who is great friends of the Clinton's, it's no surprise that their radio hosts were hoping for a Hillary Victory.