Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I must not be understanding how he isn’t benefitting from media. And his campaign is focusing only on rallies. :confused:He just did an interview with George Stephonopolous. He even did an interview with O Reilly interrupting his own convention.
I know, right?!!

It’s hard to see the logic here that Trump supporters are espousing.

Clearly, Trump is using the media to influence the American public.

No individual can deny this.
 
My main source is theconservativetreehouse.com, a blog done by a private citizen. I also follow some people on Twitter. It’s media hosted by citizens uprising, if you will.

Please if you have negative comments about the website do not post here. Send me a PM.
Thank you for your source.

I am wondering why you think this source is better than other sources?

And can you offer where this private citizen gets his/her information?
 
You know what happens when one assumes…
Am I to take that as admitting you do not have a problem with calling all Washington politicians corrupt? Or do you just find it inconvenient to make a commitment on that issue, in light of your criticism of my post about the motives of many business people?
 
Republican Rep. Richard Hanna will vote for Clinton

Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) will cast his ballot for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton this November, becoming the first Republican member of Congress to cross party lines and vote directly against Donald Trump.

“For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country,” Hanna wrote in an op-ed for Syracuse.com published Tuesday.

Hanna, a three-term lawmaker who had previously said he could never back Trump, acknowledged long-standing issues with Clinton but noted her commitment on common issues.

“Secretary Clinton has issues that depending on where one stands can be viewed as great or small. But she stands and has stood for causes bigger than herself for a lifetime,” Hanna wrote. “That matters. Mrs. Clinton has promoted many of the issues I have been committed to over the years including expanding education and supporting women’s health care.”

While noting that he disagrees with her “on many issues,” wrote Hanna, who previously said he’ll retire at the end of his term, “I will vote for Mrs. Clinton.”

“I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead,” he wrote. “All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public’s anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.”

Hanna represents the state’s 22nd district, which narrowly voted for Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in 2012—49.2 percent to 48.8 percent.
 
Thank you for your source.

I am wondering why you think this source is better than other sources?
Because that source tells people what they want to hear. That what they think is right and is the majority opinion of the country and everything else is a conspiracy.

It’s why far left wingers love Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. It’s why lunatics love InfoWars. It’s why gross alt/right nationalists love Breitbart.

It’s why people only watch Fox News or only listen to talk radio or only pay attention to what Rachel Maddow or the Young Turks say.

Because no one is interested in actual reality. No one is interested in hearing different views. We all just want to live in the safe space of the echo chambers we create for ourselves.

That’s why liberals were sure that Diebold stole the election in Ohio from John Kerry. After all, everyone hated George W. Bush. It’s why right-wingers were sure that the polls were skewed and Mitt Romney was going to win because EVERYBODY hated Obama.

And that’s why Trumpers (and Sanders people!) believe that everything is “rigged” and the media is lies and the polls today are lies because Hillary is winning because everybody hates Hillary.

:sigh:

We are a dumb, dumb people. All of us.
 
If Trump could stand not being in the spotlight for five seconds, the media would have more time to note this. After the Comey findings/hearings, Hillary’s numbers got crushed.

But because Trump can’t stand not being the center of attention, he went and said some more crazy stuff and thus is reaping the whirlwind. Again.
 
If Trump could stand not being in the spotlight for five seconds, the media would have more time to note this. After the Comey findings/hearings, Hillary’s numbers got crushed.

But because Trump can’t stand not being the center of attention, he went and said some more crazy stuff and thus is reaping the whirlwind. Again.
So Trump caused the networks to not cover Hillary Clinton blatantly lying in a televised interview? The networks had ample time to cover other stories.
 
If Trump could stand not being in the spotlight for five seconds, the media would have more time to note this. After the Comey findings/hearings, Hillary’s numbers got crushed.

But because Trump can’t stand not being the center of attention, he went and said some more crazy stuff and thus is reaping the whirlwind. Again.
And that is relevant to networks ignoring her lies told Sunday.because???
 
Misleading headline. From the text:

Enough is Enough President Donna Rice Hughes told Secrets that the Clinton campaign cited a policy of not signing pledges. But, she added, “Clinton agrees with the goals of the pledge. It’s a good step.”
How is the headline misleading? She refused to sign the pledge.
 
So Trump caused the networks to not cover Hillary Clinton blatantly lying in a televised interview? The networks had ample time to cover other stories.
Are you serious? They covered it. They covered the Fox interview. They covered Comey. They covered the emails. They’ve covered all of these scandals. You can’t say “why hasn’t the media covered this thing that I learned about from the media?”

It’s been covered.

The problem, like the IRS thing, like the VA scandal (for Obama) like Bill Clinton’s many scandals, is that the complaint isn’t really “why won’t the media cover X” but “why isn’t this scandal throwing this person I hate out of office?” It’s what liberals ranted and raved about for years with George W. Bush.

“Why won’t the media get Bush impeached over Iraq? He’s a liar. He led us falsely into war. He’s crazy. He’s an idiot.”

The issue isn’t “the media” it’s the response. You just want whatever issue it is today to hurt the person you don’t like.

I hear you! I wondered how in the world every insane thing Trump has said and done hasn’t destroyed him yet. But it hasn’t. He still won the nomination. Now, of course, he’s well behind in the general, but that doesn’t please me because I despise Hillary! I mean, she’s going to win, but I despise her.

It’s not the media’s fault that this scandal or that scandal didn’t sink Hillary or Trump. It’s the voters who kept voting for these horrid candidates.
 
Because it implies she had a problem with that particular pledge, while in fact she merely chose not to play the game of signing non-binding pledges of any kind.
She didn’t sign the pledge That’s what the headline says
 
She didn’t sign the pledge That’s what the headline says
There’s a reason she didn’t sign it.

Imagine if you replaced “Hillary” with “Pope Francis”.*

He has a policy never to sign nonbinding online pledges.

Headline reads, “Pope Francis refuses to sign pledge against pornography”.

Would you consider that to be a fair headline?

It’s true…but would you find this to be an accurate representation of reality?

*No one is saying Pope Francis and Hillary are interchangeable here, ok?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top