The biased Media vs Trump!

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Here's my answer to your accusation of a southern strategy

How is a political fact an accusation. It is really scary how little knowledge of American political history you have. You have no idea how the south used to vote pre mid 20th C or why they changed. You throw out unconnected responses to direct claims or questions. If you are the example of the typical Trump sue porter you live up to a stereotype.

Billy86

Brian, make statements you can actually back up or don't make them at all.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Brian, make statements you can actually back up or don't make them at all.

As opposed to making slanderous allegations which is routine on Boards.ie.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As opposed to making slanderous allegations

Such as... cops got shot so the GOP Southern Strategy never happened, or...?

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Such as... cops got shot so the GOP Southern Strategy never happened, or...?

The GOP and members of the party are being accused of being white supremacists, rapists & war merchants in a campaign that has truly shown what the Democrats are made of. Showing a similar way of approaching those that you disagree with. Inflame and vilify as in Russiaphobia which has spiked in America in recent years and Arab bashing a very popular political sport these days.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The GOP and members of the party are being accused of being white supremacists, rapists & war merchants in a campaign that has truly shown what the Democrats are made of.

Well, they are certainly attracting that constituency.

Tell me, KingBrian, oh King of Brians the 2nd, what are the Democrats made of?

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Well, they are certainly attracting that constituency.

Tell me, KingBrian, oh King of Brians the 2nd, what are the Democrats made of?

The Democrats and Republicans have changed since they were first founded. The Republican party, the party of Lincoln has always traditionally been the party of Liberty. They long since tossed off the hyphenated terminology that the Democrats use for their supporters to flock to them. Democrat loyalty has been fraying for a number of Presidencies. For a great many citizens they ignored them in exchange for the pursuit of foreign venture.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Democrats and Republicans have changed since they were first founded. The Republican party, the party of Lincoln has always traditionally been the party of Liberty. They long since tossed off the hyphenated terminology that the Democrats use for their supporters to flock to them. Democrat loyalty has been fraying for a number of Presidencies. For a great many citizens they ignored them in exchange for the pursuit of foreign venture.

That there is a nonsensical load of waffle that doesn't demonstrate any personal understanding of US Politics. Thank you for playing though.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Democrats and Republicans have changed since they were first founded. The Republican party, the party of Lincoln has always traditionally been the party of Liberty. They long since tossed off the hyphenated terminology that the Democrats use for their supporters to flock to them. Democrat loyalty has been fraying for a number of Presidencies. For a great many citizens they ignored them in exchange for the pursuit of foreign venture.

That there is a nonsensical load of waffle that doesn't demonstrate any personal understanding of US Politics. Thank you for playing though.

If you want to change the subject, just ask him to back up his comments to evidence. See: above.

ancapailldorcha

Billy86 wrote: »

Brian, make statements you can actually back up or don't make them at all.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As opposed to making slanderous allegations which is routine on Boards.ie.

You've both had plenty of warnings. Any more and bans will follow.

Overheal

Some people just are like

intellectual dosser

KingBrian2 wrote: »

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Just heard that crazy and very dumb @morningmika had a mental breakdown while talking about me on the low ratings @morning_joe. Joe a mess!

A tweet from Donald Trump last Friday.

For someone who allys with the NRA and their assertion that guns dont kill people but mental illness does, you'd think he'd show a bit more respect and not use it as a derogatary sticker to put on people who dont agree with him.

It's no wonder that people are 'unbiased' towards Trump, he deserves every bit of public ridicule he gets.

Yet AIPAC is untouched by the political establishment. The GOP & Democrats shower those guys with praise. Attacking Trump for attending an NRA meeting has become standard procedure for the Liberals while some of the other conferences go unmentioned. His recent attendance at a Black Church or a meeting with the Mexican President gets zero approval from any liberal. Upsets the narrative that he is a maniac unfit to become President.

I think the part in bold is important when wondering why the media/public show bias against Trump.

You cant just tick boxes and do things like 'go to a black church' and just expect the black vote to turn massively in your favour. If I was African American I'd have been pretty disgusted at being pooled into one very general demographic and effectively told my life is worthless.

Trump went to Mexico and met the Mexican president; Immediately before the meeting he was on social media knocking down the former Mexican president while immediately after he was making comments about the meeting completely contrary to the Mexican presidents version of events.

"We're going to build a wall and we're going to make Mexico pay for it!"
"How Mr. Trump?"
"....."

It's cringe worthy stuff.

Amerika

I think the political parties agree to debates before the media moderators are announced. If that is the case they should be jointly be allowed to pick the moderators. I, for the life of me, don’t see why the GOP would allow the CNN/Facebook debate after the shenanigans by CNN in the last election. Candy Crowley shamelessly lied for Barack Obama while moderating a debate right before the election, which became a game changer. Her actions ultimately led to her ouster from CNN. Now we have Anderson Cooper, and Mark Zuckerberg in the background. Cooper is more pundit than journalist. There has been a high-profile fight between Trump and CNN, who Cooper gets his paychecks from. And Trump has publicly shamed Cooper with the biting words “The people don’t trust you.” Add to that allowing Facebook, using social media algorithms, to come up with the questions is ludicrous. Facebook was already been caught using trending tricks to suppress conservative news items on their website. Plus, Zuckerberg is a well-known environmentalist, he advocates for open borders, and has publicly criticized Trump. I have a feeling this debate’s only goal is to take Trump down any which way they can.

KingBrian2

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think the part in bold is important when wondering why the media/public show bias against Trump.

You cant just tick boxes and do things like 'go to a black church' and just expect the black vote to turn massively in your favour. If I was African American I'd have been pretty disgusted at being pooled into one very general demographic and effectively told my life is worthless.

Trump went to Mexico and met the Mexican president; Immediately before the meeting he was on social media knocking down the former Mexican president while immediately after he was making comments about the meeting completely contrary to the Mexican presidents version of events.

"We're going to build a wall and we're going to make Mexico pay for it!"
"How Mr. Trump?"
"....."

It's cringe worthy stuff.

It shows he cares. He listened to his advisors and headed down to Mexico to meet with a President he has profound disagreements with.

With the Black Church he remarked that the Black Church is so very important spiritually to the American heart.

Does not sound like a man who represents a danger to the world or is traitor masquerading as a politician.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It shows she cares. She listened to her advisors and headed down to Iran to meet with a President se has profound disagreements with.

With the religious right she remarked that religion is so very important spiritually to the American heart.

Does not sound like a woman who represents a danger to the world or is traitor masquerading as a politician.

This is a very empty post, the words in it don't actually say anything which is why it was so easy to turn it into an endorsement of Clinton from you.

Amerika

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It shows he cares. He listened to his advisors and headed down to Mexico to meet with a President he has profound disagreements with.

With the Black Church he remarked that the Black Church is so very important spiritually to the American heart.

Does not sound like a man who represents a danger to the world or is traitor masquerading as a politician.

"I had a very open and constructive discussion with Donald Trump," Mexico’s president Pena Nieto said. "Even though we may not agree on everything, I trust that together we will be able to find prosperity and security."

What we witnessed was public acceptance of Trump as an American leader. The Mexican visit gamble turned out to be a huuuge win for Trump.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

This is a very empty post, the words in it don't actually say anything which is why it was so easy to turn it into an endorsement of Clinton from you.

Billy you inserted words that I did not make. Do it again and I will have it reported.

Billy86

Please read the body of my post, it already pointed out why I changed the words in yours.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

"I had a very open and constructive discussion with Donald Trump," Mexico’s president Pena Nieto said. "Even though we may not agree on everything, I trust that together we will be able to find prosperity and security."

What we witnessed was public acceptance of Trump as an American leader. The Mexican visit gamble turned out to be a huuuge win for Trump.

You seem to be leaving out that the Mexican President won't be able to vote in the election so it isn't a win at all.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

"I had a very open and constructive discussion with Donald Trump," Mexico’s president Pena Nieto said. "Even though we may not agree on everything, I trust that together we will be able to find prosperity and security."

What we witnessed was public acceptance of Trump as an American leader. The Mexican visit gamble turned out to be a huuuge win for Trump.

Meanwhile in the real world...

Donald Trump Flees Mexico as President Nieto Calls Him a Liar.

He was told Mexico will not pay for the wall, and in a cowardly manner not to be surprised by whatsoever, he did not respond... until back in the US. The trip was just another calamity, and a glimpse into how poor on any kind of foreign policy he is and will be.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

"I had a very open and constructive discussion with Donald Trump," Mexico’s president Pena Nieto said. "Even though we may not agree on everything, I trust that together we will be able to find prosperity and security."

What we witnessed was public acceptance of Trump as an American leader. The Mexican visit gamble turned out to be a huuuge win for Trump.

They never did discuss the wall.

"I was straightforward in presenting my views about the impacts of current trade and immigration policies on the United States" Trump said. "We are united by our support of Mexicans."

"I have a tremendous feeling for Mexican-Americans not only in terms of friendship but also in terms of the numbers I employ," he said. "I am proud to say how many people I employ."

Surprising he can say this when he also says this

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

You seem to be leaving out that the Mexican President won't be able to vote in the election so it isn't a win at all.

Given that it is very common for past Presidents to go oversees to court the vote of voters back home. Obama visited France & Germany. Drank a Guinness in Ireland and while on the road as US president visited Egypt, India, South Africa & Poland. Wasn't bad for poll numbers back home. The American public appeared to endorse these travels.

Now Trump is trying to win over Mexicans, the best way of doing that is heading down to Mexico city and meet the President of the Mexican Republic. Since Trump's proposals would impact Mexicans more than any other Nation in the world it is good PR & good diplomacy to reach out to the Mexican community. All i'm hearing from the left is discouragement and resentment. Hillary could easily have done a similar move.

Overheal

Hillary would have also been seen as pandering.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that it is very common for past Presidents to go oversees to court the vote of voters back home. Obama visited France & Germany. Drank a Guinness in Ireland and while on the road as US president visited Egypt, India, South Africa & Poland. Wasn't bad for poll numbers back home. The American public appeared to endorse these travels.

Now Trump is trying to win over Mexicans, the best way of doing that is heading down to Mexico city and meet the President of the Mexican Republic. Since Trump's proposals would impact Mexicans more than any other Nation in the world it is good PR & good diplomacy to reach out to the Mexican community. All i'm hearing from the left is discouragement and resentment. Hillary could easily have done a similar move.

I forgot when Obama called for all Egyptians, Indians, South Africans and Polish as well as Irish to be banned from entering the country, just like I forgot when he said he would make those countries pay for something no country on earth could afford.

Nothing Trump does will win over Mexicans at this point, it's a completely dead demographic for him. It was his choice to sh*t all over them in the primaries since there aren't too many Hispanic (or Muslim) Republicans in the scheme of things, so it worked for him. Now it's working against him, and he's been doubling down and shouting angrily into the bushes for too long to change that.




Clinton turned down a trip to Mexico by the way. Probably because she doesn't have FUBAR type damage repair attempts to do from remarkably stupid comments made by her during the election cycle. Maybe that's how life works?

Overheal

The wall isn't completely unaffordable so you lost me there. It's just not something anyone is willing to buy.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

I forgot when Obama called for all Egyptians, Indians, South Africans and Polish as well as Irish to be banned from entering the country, just like I forgot when he said he would make those countries pay for something no country on earth could afford.

Nothing Trump does will win over Mexicans at this point, it's a completely dead demographic for him. It was his choice to sh*t all over them in the primaries since there aren't too many Hispanic (or Muslim) Republicans in the scheme of things, so it worked for him. Now it's working against him, and he's been doubling down and shouting angrily into the bushes for too long to change that.




Clinton turned down a trip to Mexico by the way. Probably because she doesn't have FUBAR type damage repair attempts to do from remarkably stupid comments made by her during the election cycle. Maybe that's how life works?

Not too many Americans are backing the Democrats either.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not too many Americans are backing the Democrats either.

Define not many?

KingBrian2

With the Democrats hemorrhaging votes and so many conservatives already made up their mind on both candidates we already see a sizable chunk of the population back Trump. Hillary still receives favourable treatment from the media and her allies in Congress. Outside the Capital former comrades have become incensed with her policies. She has lost trust of everyday Americans.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

The wall isn't completely unaffordable so you lost me there. It's just not something anyone is willing to buy.

The building and maintenance of that wall is unaffordable. The building materials alone would cost upwards of $17bn, some even saying closer to $25bn. That's before labour, before machinery, before design, before land acquisition, surveying etc.

And all of that is before we even go near maintenance or manning of said wall. The Federal Budget Office estimates that the maintenance costs of the wall would go beyond the construction costs in around 7 years. So we are talking $17-25bn + $2.5-3.5bn annually (and more every year due to age). Over the next decade that would come to $42-60bn on those numbers.

And that is still before the costs of manning it on top of that, or of the machinery, labour, design, land, etc at that point!

Perhaps 'any country' was hyperbole, but I don't know of a lot of countries in a position to just give that kind of cash away with nothing in return.

764dak

This is the worst US election in my lifetime. Where are the proper politicians?