US Election: 2016

[Remius]

Here is a pretty good article that goes into Trump's assertion that the election is rigged and touches on the media bias and the true architect of it all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trumps-rigged-game/504299/

Valid points on all counts. 

 

[vonGarvin]

I believe that Trump will win.Why do I think that ? The media is 24/7 negative on Trump coming out with bogus groper victims,among other lies.The public is fed up and will vote accordingly.

2 weeks before the 1980 election, Carter was well ahead of Reagan.

Now, neither Trump nor Clinton are on par with either of those two from 1980, but....

This poll did well in 2004 and 2008, but was off in 2012 (but ahead of gallup).  And for what it's worth, Rasmussen had Clinton up by 7 points a week ago.  Now Trump is ahead. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Notwithstanding all the Republican conspiracy theories :Tin-Foil-Hat: don't you think it's a possibility that the media is down on Trump because it has good reason to be?
temperament to run the US.

Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here

Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

"Everything you learn about this you learn from us..."  Yeah, right.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Funny how all kinds of folks are keen on Wikileaks material when they release stuff they like to see, but not so much when they release stuff they don't want to see, even though the caveat in both cases is the same:  we know what was released, but we don't know 1)  what WASN'T, and 2)  why/why not.

Although in Assange's case, we know he's not a Hillary fan from a while back - and I guess we're still waiting for those Russian and Chinese leaks, eh?

Meanwhile ...

 

[tomahawk6]

They were in the middle of leaking the Podesta emails when they lost their internet connection. >

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Just sayin' Other people have different opinions. You grow up. I wasn't calling you any names.Pretty sensitive, aren't we I do not think you are taking the morally superior road just because you do.

Yes, and I gave mine of Trump. I stand by it and look forward to him becoming a historical footnote. Perhaps in 4 years the Republicans can find someone to bring their party back from the damage Trump has done. After 4 years of Clinton the US will need it.

 

[vonGarvin]

Now Trump is ahead.

And today Clinton is up, 43 to 41.

 

[ModlrMike]

Something to make fence sitters go one way or another?

Trump blames firebombed Republican office on 'animals representing Hillary Clinton'

Of course the headline could have told the same story with somewhat different wording...  :facepalm:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here

Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

"Everything you learn about this you learn from us..."  Yeah, right.

I think a lot of people overlook or ignore how persuasive media bias can be.  There's a lot of people who read a headline and react (often it seems with virtol) without bothering to read the whole story.  SM is full of people spazing out about new 5 year old stories, they don't even bother to read the date.

It should worry people that the MSM is blatantly and unethically playing favorites.

 

[FJAG]

Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here

Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

"Everything you learn about this you learn from us..."  Yeah, right.

Have you ever given thought to the fact that the very term "Main Stream Media" implies the suggestion that it is reflective of the opinion and values of "Main Stream America".

Mainstream is current thought that is widespread. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media. It is to be distinguished from subcultures and countercultures, and at the opposite extreme are cult followings and fringe theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

The article about the MSM cited by Remius's above (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trumps-rigged-game/504299/) is a good one as to explaining the fallacy behind the Trumpian "MSM conspiracy" to rig the election.

If there is a fire in a city and all the press in the city reports that there is a fire then it doesn't mean that there was a press conspiracy to support fires. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)

:cheers:

 

[Lumber]

I think a lot of people overlook or ignore how persuasive media bias can be.  There's a lot of people who read a headline and react (often it seems with virtol) without bothering to read the whole story.  SM is full of people spazing out about new 5 year old stories, they don't even bother to read the date.

It should worry people that the MSM is blatantly and unethically playing favorites.

The "MSM" hasn't been avoiding topics that shed a negative light on Hilary Clinton. I've read highly critical articles on CNN or MSNBC about Clinton's health, time as Secretary of State and "Pay to Play", the Clinton Foundation, the Email scandal, etc. etc.

If it seems like they are providing more "negative" articles about Trump than Hilary, it's simply because Trump himself keeps providing them with stories to write about!

It's not the Liberal Main Stream Media's fault that he doesn't have a brain-mouth filter.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's not the Liberal Main Stream Media's fault that he doesn't have a brain-mouth filter.

Which makes it kind of odd hearing pro-Trump folk saying, "we want to discuss the issues" when it's the candidate who tends to discuss whatever he wants.

 

[jollyjacktar]

But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.

 

[mariomike]

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)

Sometimes, a cigar is more than just a cigar, ( Monica Lewinsky )

"At one point, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vaxxxx, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: "It tastes good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6narritiii.htm

 

[Lumber]

But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.

The big difference between now and then is that, while the Media has always had the ability to be biased, we have a many tools at our own disposal to assess the veracity of their stories.

You can't say that the MSM is making things up when they are providing verifiable videos, audio recording and transcripts of things El Drumpf has actually said.

The main stream media aren't being biased; they are just being themselves. They ceased being solely focused on news a long time ago, and are more about entertainment. Clinton's health and getting paid millions for speaking events isn't as entertaining as, well, just about everything Trump says.

 

[mariomike]

Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.

Hearst.

And the role Herbert Bayard Swope played in the only execution ever of an American Police Officer.

"Don't forget that the only two things people read in a story are the first and last sentences. Give them blood in the eye on the first one."
Herbert Bayard Swope

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)

Sometimes, a cigar is more than just a cigar, ( Monica Lewinsky ) 

"At one point, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vaxxxx, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: "It tastes good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6narritiii.htm

With all the media attention, the job is probably not as much fun as it was back in JFK's day,

Look good, kick ass, get laid.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The "MSM" hasn't been avoiding topics that shed a negative light on Hilary Clinton. I've read highly critical articles on CNN or MSNBC about Clinton's health, time as Secretary of State and "Pay to Play", the Clinton Foundation, the Email scandal, etc. etc.

Uh huh?
I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/

How scathing of CNN.  Maybe I'll randomly check the other examples you gave me but I suspect it will be more of the same.

 

[FJAG]

But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.

Absolutely correct. I read extensively in history and it seems that in the US, the press has been slanted and biased ever since the First amendment was passed. One only needs to look at some of the broadsides published in the early days of the union and then those during the Civil War. There never has been a single news source that has been truly neutral. The point is it that across the board the press generally has proponents reporting either side of an issue so that if you read broadly, you will receive a more balanced view.

The trouble in my mind is that too often we confuse "opinion" writers with "news" reporters. A simple example exists within Fox news: Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are generally fairly decent and level news reporters while folks such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are the mouthpieces for a niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored.

There can never be such a thing as a completely fair and unbiased press as long as it is run by people each of whom comes with their own viewpoints and prejudices. At best you can have some loose journalistic standards to govern their behaviour in general and keep outright libel and overt falsehoods off the page.

I don't doubt that there are many journalists who are deeply offended by the troll who is now running on the Republican ticket and therefore take every opportunity to point out his shortcomings to the public. To say, however, that there is a great conspiracy by the "MSM" to get Clinton elected is a massive stretch by those people who don't really understand how fragmented and disconnected the press is from each other. The press couldn't organize a one man rush on a urinal.

Those folks who wonder why the "MSM" doesn't report on the issues put forward by Trump should remind themselves that so far Trump hasn't said much except generalities. I've been to Trump's campaign website and pretty much everything that he says there I've seen reported in the "MSM". (Betcha he won't allow open carry in the lobby of Trump Towers). But there are few details; just vague generalities supported by so called facts which have been debunked numerous times.

One thing that the press hasn't reported very well is that Trump intends to replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts. These will let individuals make tax deductible contributions into an account that they maintain to use in the event of a health care expense. In the US even relatively minor procedures can run into the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To leave the extreme costs of medical events to a privately run "savings account" is the height of inhumanity to your fellow man.  :2c:

:cheers:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Hearst.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Remius]

Uh huh?
I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/

How scathing of CNN.  Maybe I'll randomly check the other examples you gave me but I suspect it will be more of the same.

How about Fox News.  Mainstream enough or is it fringe reporting?  Lead story is the emails.