Hillary’s a moron, but that doesn’t excuse Trump’s birtherism.
People need to also rethink the biases that feel are directed toward Trump.
Trump is opening up the gates of Hell and the Asylum without any help from anyone else.
Also…keep in mind that it seems like daily that for every Elizabeth Warren attack…he is getting two from the Right. Even as we speak, there are serious plans in the making to disrupt the GOP Convention and “strip”? Trump of delegates. This is in addition to the luke-warm support (if any) from GOP leaders. (One of which is the Speaker of the House).
Trump needs to look in the mirror and do some serious soul-searching before he and his Supporters blame others for his problems.
By the way…
Much like usmc (and others)…I am NOT a Hillary supporter.
Exactly right, well said.
Every election any more, we hear two excuses, sometimes pre-emptively.
Liberals always claim the policies are fine and great, it’s just the communications of all their great policies has been bad.
Conservatives always claim candidates are good, it’s just that the media sandbags them and their chances.
These are excuses. The media are biased - but Trump isn’t some paladin in they are turning into a troll. He’s a wreck, he’s not even a conservative, and the more we learn, the worse it gets.
Stop whining about the media and get a decent candidate.
1 Like
I tend to agree with you Mufasa, Trump is his own worst enemy. But, that does not excuse a bias media that bends over backwards to get a democrat elected every election cycle.
If the republicans had picked the single best candidate of the 17, take your choice, they would still be vilifying him at this point in the race. It has always been that way since I can remember. They attacked Reagan too but he was so popular with the people that it didn’t matter. Trump has none of that.
I have no doubt they will have a field day with Trump. At the very least it will be highly entertaining.
I wonder how hard they will go after Hillary if a recommendation for indictment comes down from FBI Director Comey.
What a crazy year…
Crazy indeed…
And it’s going to get wilder.
I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that 1) the GOP Convention will be the highest rated, and most covered, ever and 2) the Trump/Clinton debates will break all records.
Grab on to your seat, folks; you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
I’ve been thinking about the study and now believe Trump’s negative + total amount of coverage is what propelled him forward more than his positive.
Trump from the beginning has framed himself as an outsider. When pundits and rival GOP candidates who routinely have failed the GOP voter base criticized him, it only worked to cement this perception.
I can’t imagine the positive coverage of where they interview some white rural hillbilly real helped changed hearts and minds.
Question for you guys:
What is considered whining vs fighting MSM?
Is revoking the WaPo’s press credentials fighting?
Is pointing out obvious examples of media bias and fuckery on social media whining or fighting?
Please define fighting MSM vs whining about MSM
You are spot on with both calls Mufasa.
How many watched the first republican primary debate? Something like 24 million? What does that tell us about a Trump/Clinton debate? Could it reach 40-50 million?
Post duplicated below
There is not much I like about Donald Trump but he’s spot on with his treatment of the press. The press has been so biased for so long they are aghast that someone will now actually call them out on it. That’s not whining that’s calling a spade a spade.
This was the Washington Post headline:
“Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.”
And they based it on these words from Trump:
“Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump said. “And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”
They are apparently inferring that the “something else” or “something else going on” Trump was referring to was that Obama had a connection to the shooting. And that is simply not accurate. And they pulled the headline shortly thereafter.
Edit: Trump could have meant that the “something else” was that Obama thinks he can negotiate his way out of terrorist attacks. Could have meant plenty of other things.
The leeway some of you are giving Donald Trump is breathtakingly unreal.
I just want the main stream media to call out Hillary, or Obama the same way they call out a republican any republican. They were brutal on Romney and others as well. To me this has less to do with Trump, we all know he acts like a jack ass. But, If we put aside the Trump hysteria, I simply would like equal and fair coverage for all candidates regardless of their party affiliation.
For example, we have a candidate running for President who is under investigation by the FBI, this has never occurred in history. Yet, the MSLM does not seem at all concerned about that. In fact, the Trump University suit has garnered more attention. Again, maybe Trump cheated every student that ever went to his school and deserves ridicule-fine. But where is the ridicule for Hillary regarding the two open FBI investigations.
For me this is not about Trump.
Does this study take into account how the average negative statement made against Trump vs the average statement against Clinton compares?
As demonstrated in this thread, the statements made against Trump by the MSM are deeply treacherous where they’ll take him saying “he has something else in mind” and report it as “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.”
Are Clinton’s misrepresentations as equally as bad or more softball in nature? Chances are, with a liberal slanted MSM, the negative coverage of Clinton is nowhere as deeply damaging.
Question for you - the article from WaPo that headlined “Trump seems to connect Obama to Orlando shooting”, was that written under the banner of straight journalism/reporting or was it news analysis under an editorial section?
I think this is the article Raj is referring to, and it doesn’t appear to be in the Editorial section.
1 Like
It’s part of their Post Politics section - political blog reporting. It’s news analysis, and part of what she is doing is offering her opinion (hence, Trump “seems” to be doing something, in her view).
It’s not officially on the editorial page, but it isn’t being offered as straight journalism either.
Biased? Sure. It’s an opinion. Hers.
Perhaps, but the fact that it’s not in an opinion or editorial section is telling. And you think this is done passively or accidentally.
This is a slow boil TB, little by little the pendulum inches left. This article is so utterly biased, if I waved the print edition in front of my plants, they would magically grow.
1 Like