Hive mind or sheep?
How can 100% of the media report on the outrage over Donald Trump’s statement about withholding his acceptance of the election results until after the election? It’s amazing, even Fox News was doing it.
He said nothing wrong and if he would have agreed with the question, he would have been fighting our free election system. If someone cheats, we have to hold those people responsible.
There are a million reasons as to why you may or may not agree, I’m more amazed at the mainstream media and how in lock step, 100% was ready to pounce on this same narrative.
He said nothing wrong and if he would have agreed with the question, he would have been fighting our free election system. If someone cheats, we have to hold those people responsible.
There are a million reasons as to why you may or may not agree, I’m more amazed at the mainstream media and how in lock step, 100% was ready to pounce on this same narrative.
If the Democrats do it, it's not. Do not delude yourselves ... this election has gotten away from the close control of the mass media and they are now in panic mode ... even though they KNOW that the polls ARE rigged in Hillary's favor.
I think they are worried that they do not have enough fake ballots prepared.
The election is rigged. Trump is getting exactly what 3rd parties have had to deal with for 100 years.
It is shameful and likely criminal.
Also, I’m not convinced that the pools are a 100% correct, but of course, I felt the same way 4 years ago.
Not to mention the media, lots of politicians on both sides of the aisle and all sorts of other people and organizations of persuasion.
It's either space aliens or terrorists.
I have an underdeveloped notion about a novel about super fast reproducing pygmy allosaurs from Antarctica (a theory based on one fossil bone found) swarming all over a small college town.
I could always change the location. Don't care much for libtards at the Smithsonian.
Trump could build the wall to keep them contained, except for their ability to matter-transport to NY, MA, and CA for a moveable feast.
http://afr.org/reign-dreegs-lizard-pe...
Maybe some of it has been racked in grocery store check out lanes. Recall the gray alien fad of him photographed with world leaders. I learned I could do darkroom tricks with b/w photography during the 70s as a camera caring reporter..
http://content.time.com/time/specials...
http://conservativebyte.com/2016/10/m...
What baffles me is that the election is even in doubt. If anybody should be ahead by 50, it's Donald. Yet I followed a link from here to Rolling Stone and they are not only in the tank for Hillary, they are actually down the drain.
-- that masterpiece is written for the first time here by Dino Allosaurus
There are other things about pollsters that can be disconcerting. For example, I listened to one of the chief major network pollsters say that they "fill in" numbers based on "likely" answers. He went on to explain that if someone hangs up without responding, but comes from a predominantly Democrat area, they'll put down a vote for Hillary. When the reporter asked him if they did the same thing in Republican dominated areas, he dodged answering. Does that give you confidence?
If they were fair, I would expect them to contact Trump and ask which independent observers he would trust to certify the election and what practicable steps he wants to see to ensure a fair election. They make it sound like he's saying he might reject the election just because he doesn't like the outcome. It did sound like that. They need to follow up. But instead the media seem like they're pouncing on him because he's unpopular among citizens and out of favor with the powerful.
I do not agree with how they treated him on his mic recording his private conversation either.
I can't stand Trump. I think he appeals to the scare and confused of the world. But reporters should be objective. I sense he's alienated the media, and they're having fun with him.
I like Trump more now than before but now I understand that he isn’t a part of ether establishment; he will destroy our two party system, which exactly what we need.
Globalization is a result of technology IMHO, and it will lead to accelerated wealth creation around the world. The important thing is for the gov't to stay out of the way, so people can specialize in what they do best, and trade freely with others. Trump talks about someone winning and losing in a trade, but in a mutual trade both parties come away with more value than they had before.
Trump wants to renegotiate trade agreements because we have been and are allowing foreign counties to tax the hell out of our good while we don’t tax their goods sufficiently to offset the difference. China is manipulating its currency lower to make the cost of its goods it produces lower, where we can’t compete. All he said is he wants to do renegotiate trade agreements. I’d flip your ranking around, Johnson (just because he doesn’t know where Aleppo is at), Clinton and finally Trump.
Johnson is a starry eyed libertarian; he is ruled by his ideology. He is not an objectionist and this cozy relationship between the two ideologies is fine but there is a difference. He would sacrifice himself to support his ideology. For example, he is all in on legalizing drugs, because he feels the government doesn’t have a right to tell you what to do with yourself. I feel that we should legalize drugs only after we eliminate welfare and unemployment benefits for people that choose to partake. Not doing both… Also, he doesn’t stand a chance in hell, a vote for Johnson is as good as a turd in the toilet, it isn’t going anywhere until you flush it.
Clinton would be anything but free, I shouldn’t have to tell you that the only free trade that would be going on are with the FOB (Friends of Bill) group. So many pay for play allegations and now proof. It pains me that you rank Clinton ahead of Trump as I’m worried for you.
Trump is an unknown but he is also a business man and knows what we need to do to encourage free trade.
I’d pick the unknown over the obviously other poor choices…
Mitch
He thinks they're somehow getting away with something by taxing US goods, and we need the same "benefit". I'm of the starry-eyed libertarian view. I don't care if countries discourage their people from buying US goods. I don't want the govt to negotiate, just get out of the way.
"But instead the media seem like they're pouncing on him because he's unpopular among citizens and out of favor with the powerful."
No, they gang up on him because they are in the bag for Hillary. They're not even trying to hide it any more.
Kerry won the nomination, not Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Hillary was running that year. At the time I was for Dean. I thought the media had it in for him. Now I think a better way to say it is many journalists/outlets sensed they could get away with saying he sounds crazy. With a candidate who projected more equanimity to start with, people would have seen directional mics as sounding weird. I think the same thing is happening with Trump but worse.
I used to see the media as having this huge sway over public opinion. Maybe b/c there are more outlets now or maybe b/c I'm older, I see them as more a reflection of their consumers.
Which would explain why their viewership is declining.
IMO - good riddance. There hasn't been a free market in journalism for decades. This year's election I hope it finally kills off a few of the major players to shock the others. If not, I hope they all go under.
That's who's voting for Hillary.
I think that Trump appeals to the informed voter. Time is short ... I hope that you become one.
DURING the last debate, on national television (I think we can assume some level of international coverage, as well) Hillary revealed our nuclear launch times.
That is a felony. Yet what is in the news? Trump saying he'll abide by the law.
I do not think Clinton revealed our nuclear launch time at the debates.
The claims in mainstream media headlines, like NYT, saying Trump won't accept the outcome are wrong. I have lost some respect for them because of their continual bias against Trump.
There was a point just before D-Day when the press was making some pretty accurate guesses that Eisenhower briefed the press on the plans making them responsible for keeping them secret.
How many reports did any of them air about Hillary goofing and telling millions of viewers in several countries the time lapse for the US nuclear code to set it in motion? That was top secret "classified" information, not for worldwide distribution. She had a moment of confusion during the debate as well, mini brain freeze, likely fixed by some kind of Rx pump for her brain. By the time she met with her audience she was in her manic mode. Someone will "forget" to hive her he meds after elected, she will be institutionalized, and ole Tim will run things.
Let me further illustrate how easy it is to screw up people's brains. If I said, "Tell me the original name of Istanbul and you answered Constantinople, you'd be correct. But what if you answered elpo nitnat scoC? I'd say you're wrong. You'd swear you're right. And you would be correct provided I had the ingenuity to reverse the letters and eliminate the spaces. If so-called journalists are forced to understand the words and sentence structure they'd know what was truly said rather than an "interpretation" twisted to benefit their preferred candidate.
When loyalty overcomes truth, then nothing said from that point forward can be trusted.