Media Bias against trump

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Now they oppose Trump because Trump is a white nationalist.

Problem is, he just says it out loud.  Gotta keep that shit on the down low, bro.

Since everyone believes Republicans are racist anyway, why bother hiding it?

I think most people in America think that most Republicans are not racist.

I think the media bias in the U.S. has come almost exclusively from right-wing media like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. These biased sources have supported the candidacy of idiots like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and now Donald Trump. candidates like Trump and Sarah Palin. These biased news sources have also given credibility to wild conspiracy theories against politicians like Obama and Clinton. I think America is going to be susceptible to electing unqualified candidates as long as Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh are able to shape a great swath of opinion in America. It seems like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and their ilk have also been able to sway a lot of opinion north of the border too.

An article on media and the U.S. Presidential candidates: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/01/in-the-media-narrative-hillary-clinton-i...

Quote:

One of the major rationales for the ceaseless coverage of the issue is the prospect of a Clinton presidency being burdened by the necessity of dealing with a full-blown witch hunt by Republican-led House committees investigating her alleged conflicts of interest. Oddly enough, the media can barely spare a moment to contemplate the overwhelming conflicts of interest and legal exposure that a President Donald Trump would bring to the White House.

As Media Matters laid out on Monday, Trump is currently facing 75 different civil lawsuits for matters including fraud, breach of contract, nonpayment, sexual harassment and defamation. He has three pending Trump University fraud suits and is suspected of perpetrating a “pay-for-play” scheme with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and possibly others to shut down a state investigation into the same fraudulent enterprise.

lagatta wrote:

But so is Trump, and he is also unhinged, which makes him even more dangerous.

I've said before that I'm no fan of Trump. I don't think he's been treated fairly and I think he's been underestimated far longer than he should have been, but I'd pick Warren or Sanders over him any day and twice on Tuesday. 

That said, it's not completely in the realm of conspiracy theory territory to suggest that Clinton is also getting unhinged. I think the hubub over her "why aren't I ahead 50 points?" Video was overblown, but it wasn't good. And that was a scripted video, not a rally, so that was the best take.

We also know from Wikileaks that she drinks during the day at least occasionally.

Quote:

Nothing on earth we can do about it anyway.

You've got that right, but I can't look away....

lagatta wrote:

I also drink (very occasionally) during the day - lunch dates, launches etc. Can be counted on one hand nowadays.

So? And I have a bit of wine more often than not with my supper. Does that make me a substance abuser? Nope. I worked in an environment where at one point there was a hell of a lot of substance abuse: booze, cocaine etc (well, also dope, but that is less often a problem). And of course tobacco, which got a pass but killed - especially in combination with the above-mentioned stuff.

One of those milieux that was above all workaholic, where the people were proud to work long hours and weekends. You can see the problem cases. People who enjoy a glass of wine occasionally at lunch are not (necessarily) among them. One guy I worked with started with beer at 10 a.m. Then some wine for dinner (for dinner, not with dinner)... and lots of smoking. I was better off freelancing at home, though I made less money. The environment was getting toxic.

Your allegation sounds more like toxic American puritanism than anything else. One of the most toxic things there is. Moreover, it is deeply sexist.

When staffers are saying "someone needs to get over there and sober her up" at 4:30pm, that suggests more than a beer with lunch.

So Cody, why do you think Melania Trump isn't white? 

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

$$$$

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001

Donald Trump’s candidacy might not be making America great, CBS Chairman Les Moonves said Monday, but it’s great for his company.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," Moonves said at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter — perfectly distilling what media critics have long suspected was motivating the round-the-clock coverage of Trump's presidential bid.

Trump just got a media endorsement:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13491700/kkk-newspaper-...

lagatta wrote:

I don't know anything about her personal habits and find such rumours distasteful. Attacking her on "regime change" or refusing to support a $15 minimum wage is fine; but you are veering into speculation.

milo204 wrote:

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

I agree, but do you mind elaborating on how Trump poses a threat to the stability of international wealth and power?

Obama just gave a profound stump speech at Chapel Hill! Go Obama!!!

JKR wrote:

milo204 wrote:

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

Chomsky is wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

I'm fairly sure milo204 also wholeheartedly supports Clinton over Trump. One doesn't need to support any particular candidate to make a statement about the presence of media bias.

Milo204 is not making a value statement (eg. "Clinton > Trump" or "Trump > Clinton" or even "media bias is right/wrong"), just a statement that the bias is to be expected.

Chomsky could directly say "Media bias exists" and also "The media bias favours Clinton" and also "I support Clinton for president" with no inconsistency whatsoever.

JKR wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

...but I'd pick Warren or Sanders over him any day and twice on Tuesday. 

Warren and Sanders are both wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

Warren first showed up on my radar in 2014 and I was extremely excited for her to run for POTUS in 2016. I was extremely disappointed when she didn't. One of the things I liked most about her was her fearlessness in challenging the establishment and it's major players.

I didn't learn of Sanders (wasn't paying attention to first half of primaries) until around March. One of the things I liked most about Sanders was his commitment to taking on wall street and restoring the power to the people instead of the oligarchy.

You might notice that Clinton couldn't be further on these issues. And what's worse, we've now learned that the establishment's roots go far deeper than (at least I) had ever imagined. The media, several "indepenedent" government agencies, and many major corporations all have close personal ties to the uniparty establishment. Literally every day new connections are being made showing how this or that influential person is married to the sibling of a major Clinton insider.

Regardless, I still prefer Clinton to Trump by a slim margin, though I don't think she'll win.

Misfit wrote:

Cody! Answer Swallow's question!

We're pursuing the real issues now.

Is whether Melania is white or not really the most controversial thing I've said in this thread in the last two days, that it merits such scrutiny?

Fine. I retract the statement that Melania isn't white. She looks mixed to me, but I guess I hadn't looked closely enough.

Do you disagree with anything else I've said?

Cody87 wrote:

cruisin_turtle wrote:

Trump might be an idiot and an embrassment but at least he is independent and was not bought with lobbyist money to get here.  I think that's what the people are saying.

... once the corporate media destroys it's credibility, it loses it's ability to educate people on Trump's legitimate flaws.

Just as nobody here would give credence to an op-ed on Breitbart(myself included), there are now many (myself included) who will also not give credence to an op-ed by CNN or the NYT.

The corporate media has shredded their credibility...

When the corporate media is so blantantly partisan, people who see such will no longer give them credence even when they bring up valid points. This is why many people are numb to criticism of Trump.

You got it, Cody.  There are people who no longer pay any attention to the main stream media.  That is one major factor in Trump's popularity.  

The other major factor is that people have common sense and they are judging the candidates on what they DID not what they SAID. In other words, people wised up to the spin.  While Trump can't help but say stupid things almost everyday, they are just words and his past Track Record speaks of success and of the vast majority of people who have personally known him and worked with him actually like him.  Hillary's track record is just the opposite. Hillary getting Huma to marry Weiner is just one example that is blowing up right now. People hate Hillary track record even though she has been saying all the right things during the campaign. 

So, TIL (Today I Learned):  Hillary Clinton is the female, live-action Barney Gumble, AND she "got" Huma Abedin to marry Anthony Weiner.

Less than six days left.  If you know she likes to snort her blow of the backs of the homeless, NOW is the time to tell your fearless truth.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Actually his track record speaks of a series of bankruptcies, mostly using other people's money.. 

Of course people would rather have an honorable person like Stein be the second choice against Hillary but they don't. What they have is a choice between  a self made billionaire who is refusing to sell favours and a career politician who lives very well on tax payers money and who owe favours worth hundreds of millions. For me, the choice is very clear.

Factoid: Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that got zero dollars from the Koch brothers.

Cody87 wrote:

Is whether Melania is white or not really the most controversial thing I've said in this thread in the last two days, that it merits such scrutiny?

No, of course not, but it's typical of the pointless, fact-free elections campaign "debates." People throw out odd "facts," ignore when questioned on them, bounce from random idea to random character assassination about the candidates, and no one talks about what might actually be good policy for the country or tries to get to what is actually accurate eabout policy and events, preferring (in Newt Gingrich's language) to focus on what "feels" true. 

Now, I want to make it clear that to put it mildly, I do not like Hillary Rodham-Clinton. She is a war hawk and a supporter of the .0001%. But so is Trump, and he is also unhinged, which makes him even more dangerous. And the unleashing of violent racist speech can lead to horrific situations.

Nothing on earth we can do about it anyway.......

Nonsense...this is what these pages must be considering...what to do, instead of arguing with these reactionaries trying to turn back the pages to when there actually was some honour in the press at least.......if never in government.......

where firstly are the dicussions around what we must work for, a humanitarian non capitalist non imperialist decentralist system, ecologically respectful!

,,,,but these pages are saturated with the poisons emanating from the likes of the Orwellian CBC...these propaganda outlets must be exposed and challenged....therefore my suggestions re boycott, hook line and sinker....

our local imperialist war mongering free trading neoliberal agents in Government, their corporate takeovers of all aspects of Canadian society and culture must be challenged...therefore e.g. my suggestions that we challenge the present Canadian government in Court...they clearly won on fraudulent grounds...at least to chip away at their credibility!

But above all we must be practicing what we stand for...first tentative experiments in the vision we want to create nationally---

and what are our transitional strategies....

forget the gatekeepers of the status quo, let`s get on with it...time is running out after November 8th you can be sure pour own Canadian authorities under the guidance of our American masters willl begin implementing our cherished not to be touched Bill C51...look out, any independent thinkers out there!

What if *my* feel is, like, ten times stronger than *your* feel?  In what universe should *my* feel NOT win????

If *your* feel lost, fair and square, there's no shame in it.  It just didn't "feel" enough.

I just wish it weren't about the feels.

Don't let it hit you in the ass on your way out.