Shifting tone, Trump entertains the notion he could lose

[Pinot]

16 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

What a joke. Fox News has about 8 hours per day of hard news. MSNBC does not have ANY. 

 

Hard news at Faux? Really? I'll have to try and watch a few minutes some day. It's just that I have a weak stomach and when I turn up the sound and actually listen to what they're blathering on about...I get queasy. Little girl tummy. 

 

 

[Srikcir]

7 minutes ago, Pinot said:

Hard news at Faux

The Trump campaign has forced even FOX into an occassional truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/03/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-10-points-both-seen-as-flawed.html

 

[mtls2005]

The chip the aliens planted in my brain keep telling any polls which show Trump losing are rigged.

[keemapoot]

This very interesting piece just in makes complete sense, taken together with Roger Ailes leaving Fox, Hannity able to leave anytime now, and just hiring the Briebart guy:

 

Donald Trump is totally going to launch his own TV network when he loses

http://qz.com/760468/donald-trump-is-totally-going-to-launch-his-own-tv-network-when-he-loses/

 

I wonder what it will be called?  Retard news? I'm sure they will make a bundle catering to the Nascar set with this one, and at the same time gut out Fox News.

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

What a joke. Fox News has about 8 hours per day of hard news. MSNBC does not have ANY. 

 

Oh you little joker you.

 

Fox is 24x7 crap from top to bottom. What masquerades as "news" is simply anti-Clinton propaganda, and the fillers are even worse.

Then you add "commentators" like Kelly and O'Reilly spouting rubbish.

And don't even get me started on Hannity, he sums up everything that is wrong with America and Republicans.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Chicog

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Has the Trump-Hannity Town Hall program infomercial (taped, but postponed) been aired yet?

 

It just started this minute.

[iReason]

@Posts 76/90 UG

 

"Bill O'Reilly...and others are trustworthy and sincere."

 

Absolute hogwash

 

Bubba O'Reilly is a proven liar.

 

Look up O'Reilly's Oswald lie.

Look up O'Rielly's El Salvador lies.

 

I'm not going to waste my time with links.

Do your homework before you make ignorant statements like that.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Hannity is a dishonest idiot. I never accept what he says without searching myself to verify it. However, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Bret Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith and others are trustworthy and sincere. They are not always right, but they do not try to mislead viewers. There is plenty of real news and honest commentary on Fox News.

I remember when just recently O'Reilly claimed that the slaves who helped build the White House were well treated. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support his contention.  Once this was called to his attention, O'Reilly honorably admitted that his assertion was unsupported by the evidence.  

Actually, I'm kidding. O'Reilly just doubled down on it in his usual way by angrily attacking the people who pointed this out. This is honesty?

[iReason]

^^^

 

This fool claims:

"The Slaves participated..."

And characterizes the slaves as being hired.

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by iReason

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, keemapoot said:

This very interesting piece just in makes complete sense, taken together with Roger Ailes leaving Fox, Hannity able to leave anytime now, and just hiring the Briebart guy:

 

Donald Trump is totally going to launch his own TV network when he loses

http://qz.com/760468/donald-trump-is-totally-going-to-launch-his-own-tv-network-when-he-loses/

 

I wonder what it will be called?  Retard news? I'm sure they will make a bundle catering to the Nascar set with this one, and at the same time gut out Fox News.

That's interesting.

Because honestly before reading that I had thought exactly the same thing about his latest campaign tactic to go with Breitbart leadership.

That he is going do double down on being the "real" conspiracy theories and hateful divisive rhetoric all of the time.

That he expects to lose, probably HOPES to lose.

But as least he will lose as his "authentic" and bizarrely entertaining self.

PERFECT for launching a new broadcasting empire.

It really makes sense.

He's obsessed with media ratings ... much more than he's ever be really interested in being president.

In this role he can still do a lot of damage, just as Fox News has done a lot of damage, but definitely preferable to him being president. 

[thaihome]

On 8/16/2016 at 1:25 AM, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

We know. He called Trump "woefully unfit" for the job. Of course, a lot of people have said the same about him.

Of course, even by a known right wing poll 52% approve of Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

 

32% approve of Trump.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

TH  

[Linzz]

6 hours ago, Buzzz said:

Agreed,

My beef with FOX is they call it 'news'. 

FOX is dishonest as they come by design. 

It's a disinformation right wing political arm of the Republican Party. 

 

Really sad what FOX has done to their viewers. 

I can spot an ignorant FOX viewer within minutes of meeting.

"Right wing hate parrots" doing their Hannity impression to anybody that will listen.

Pitiful that a devious political TV program can disguise itself as news and mould the viewers into mindless FOX zombies. 

 

The Chairman of FOX ( just resigned for sexual harassment) is a senior republican strategist. 

Not an honest piece of news ever was produced. His staff are the laughing stock of journalism. 

 

Remove the "news" title and refer to the show as conservative entertainment, like Rush Limbaugh would be a more honest approach. 

 

 

 

 

 

There is political bias everywhere. CNN must be  a voice for the Democrats then. They just can't help themselves from dissing Trump whenever they have an opportunity. I had to laugh the other night when I watched an ad or a hotel chain and the guy connected with them using a cell phone with Hillary's face on screen. Then when the client entered the room wow guess who was on the television screen? Yep Hillary again! Subliminal advertising.

 

Why would you be surprised when CNN President Mosley is married to Hillary's Deputy Secretary Nides. Of course no discussion between the sheets!

CBS President is brother to top Obama official Ben Rhodes.

ABC President's sister is Obama Special Adviser, Sherwood.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Linzz
Sp

[Linzz]

[Publicus]

4 hours ago, Pinot said:

 

With a new Supreme Court coming up after the election does gerrymandering get reexamined? I know it gets struck down when it gets completely ridiculous but it doesn't seem to be a problem for the Supreme Court now. Or is this purely a states issue and they do what they want to? It seems so inherently unfair to let a state gerrymander one political party to perpetual rule. 

 

Gerrymandering per se does not get into the US courts. Other related issues are heard in the US courts, but not gerrymandering per se. Each state draws its constituency districts for the US House and that is that. It is the state's exclusive domain. 

 

What does get in to the US courts is racial gerrymandering that has a negative impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Whittman case in Virginia was strictly racial gerrymandering intended to have a negative impact on black voters, so the state lost. (CRA-1964 states drawing a congressional district to enhance black voting power is legal, but drawing a district to reduce black voting power is illegal/unconstitutional.)

 

The Feds, based on the official decennial census of the general population, apportion the number of US House seats to each state (apportionment). Then each state draws its own US House districts (redistricting). Neither can challenge the other in any of it. Feds exclusively set the apportion ratio of one US Representative per population, currently 1 : 750K general population. And that is that.

 

Closest Scotus has come to gerrymandering without considering gerrymandering per se is the one person, one vote ruling. That is, each House district in each state must have 750,000 population (with a variance of no greater than 1.5% to special consideration of 2% in rare instances). But that was not a gerrymandering ruling. It was a Constitutional equal protection of the law in voting ruling. 

 

As long as a U.S. House district consists of 750K general population, there is no violation occurring of the Constitution. Strange but true.

 

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled unanimously the North Carolina voting law is discriminatory against voters on the basis of race, which put the law in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the 14th Amendment). What was for the longest time a conservative and reactionary Appeals Court sitting in Richmond, Virginia is now the opposite, as the following excerpt makes clear.... 

 

July 29, 2016

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned North Carolina’s voter identification law, one of the nation’s most extensive, saying it targets African-American voters “with almost surgical precision.”

The court’s opinion, written by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, said, “Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” the ruling states.

http://blog.votingwars.news21.com/2016/07/29/north-carolina-voter-id-law-overturned-court-says-legislation-had-discriminatory-intent/

 

Racial gerrymandering goes straight in to the U.S. courts. However, party gerrymandering does not. The only thing a state must otherwise do is comport to the apportionment ratio set by the Feds of 1 Representative for every 450K general population.

 

(Texas just lost its attempt to change the one person one vote ruling of Scotus from back in the 1960s. Scotus last month unanimously agreed again that one US Representative in the House must represent the general population of his district, rather than only the population of registered voters. The Texas law Scotus unanimously struck down would have helped angry old white guys with red necks to compete more effectively in voting against blacks, Hispanics, Americans of Asian descent.) 

 

Hell, even Clarence Thomas agreed on the general population standard as the Constitutional one. Ole Clarence must be getting delirious in his old age and without his ideological soulmate. Still, the outcome on this case couldn't have been better. 

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.  

[keemapoot]

47 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's interesting.

Because honestly before reading that I had thought exactly the same thing about his latest campaign tactic to go with Breitbart leadership.

That he is going do double down on being the "real" conspiracy theories and hateful divisive rhetoric all of the time.

That he expects to lose, probably HOPES to lose.

But as least he will lose as his "authentic" and bizarrely entertaining self.

PERFECT for launching a new broadcasting empire.

It really makes sense.

He's obsessed with media ratings ... much more than he's ever be really interested in being president.

In this role he can still do a lot of damage, just as Fox News has done a lot of damage, but definitely preferable to him being president. 

 

There are quite a few articles now predicting we will see the nastiest scorched earth strategy against Clinton ever mounted with this new Brieibart led team. It promises to get very ugly, and if these reports are correct, it will set the tone for the new TV network as well probably as well as launch these guys in their career.

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

That's interesting.

Because honestly before reading that I had thought exactly the same thing about his latest campaign tactic to go with Breitbart leadership.

That he is going do double down on being the "real" conspiracy theories and hateful divisive rhetoric all of the time.

That he expects to lose, probably HOPES to lose.

But as least he will lose as his "authentic" and bizarrely entertaining self.

PERFECT for launching a new broadcasting empire.

It really makes sense.

He's obsessed with media ratings ... much more than he's ever be really interested in being president.

In this role he can still do a lot of damage, just as Fox News has done a lot of damage, but definitely preferable to him being president. 

 

 

In fairness, the Jerry Springer Show needs a bit of competition.

 

 

[Jingthing]

 It's Bannon time.

Be afraid.

Quote

 

This Man Is the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America

Steve Bannon runs the new vast right-wing conspiracy—and he wants to take down both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

 It's Bannon time.

Be afraid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

 

 

Afraid?

I'm looking forward to the dribbling frenzy.

 

 He's supposedly been paying Breitbart to promote his crap anyway, so it really isn't anything new.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

9 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

Fox is 24x7 crap from top to bottom.

 

Baloney. Pretty much everyone admits that Shepard Smith does hard news and there are other shows that do hard news with commentary by journalists on both sides of the aisle. Chris Wallace and Special Report come to mind.

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I remember when just recently O'Reilly claimed that the slaves who helped build the White House were well treated. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support his contention.  

 

There is also no evidence to prove him wrong. However, you do not want to consider that.

[Andaman Al]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I remember when just recently O'Reilly claimed that the slaves who helped build the White House were well treated. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support his contention

 

And the reply from Ulysses G

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

There is also no evidence to prove him wrong. However, you do not want to consider that.

 

That has to be the worst ever attempt by any 'apologist' to try and offer rabid support to 'one of their own'. To actually even suggest that there is no evidence to support the inhumane treatment of slaves in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries utterly beggars belief. You have stooped so low that I doubt you can ever be matched. It scares me to think you can actually sit there and think "what can I say to protect Bill O'Reilly". You have taken my breath away Ulysses G, I am not often shocked, but you succeeded.

 

Do you also suddenly believe that the slaves that were nothing more than fodder, who had NO CHOICE and NO FREEDOM, were all of a sudden well treated because they were building 'another building'. All the evidence available displays the horrific treatment of slaves in the US, and because there are no records to say 'the slaves were given three meals a day, well treated and had nice accommodation', you believe that Bill O'Reilly has a point and that 'they might have been well treated'. ?????? So in your opinion just say anything you wish, just make it up as if there is no evidence to prove otherwise you must be believed.

 

Completely unbelievable, and I guess totally believable and representative of true Trump supporter mentality. And do not say that you are not a Trump supporter as there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Meanwhile.

 

In CROATIA ... 

 

Quote

 

Ivanka Trump vacationing with Putin’s rumored girlfriend

 

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has faced criticism and scrutiny in recent months for complimenting Putin and for his campaign manager's alleged ties to political players in Russia

 

 

 

The real story here is Ivanka is out of the picture. She wanted him to moderate. That's OVER. 

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

 

And the reply from Ulysses G

 

 

That has to be the worst ever attempt by any 'apologist' to try and offer rabid support to 'one of their own'. To actually even suggest that there is no evidence to support the inhumane treatment of slaves in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries utterly beggars belief.

 

Your answer is as silly as ever. I never said or implied such a thing and nether did Bill O'Reilly. People like you always try to throw in a red herring, because your arguments are so weak. You want to refute something that YOU made up and are trying to hang on me.

Stick to baiting other posters, insults and fiction, that is what you - and several others - are good at.

What O'Reilly said and I was referring to, is that slaves did assist in the construction of the White House, alongside free black and white laborers and that slaves were “well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government.” He also said that the horror of slavery is a “given.”

Jesse J. Holland, who wrote a book on slaves who built the White House, noted that the slaves were housed in a barn and were provided with food. The quality of them is difficult to say.

O'Reilly defended himself by asserting that, “As any honest historian knows in order to keep slaves and free laborers strong, the Washington administration provided meat, bread and other staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building,” said O’Reilly. “That is a fact. Not a justification, not a defense of slavery. Just a fact.”

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[iReason]

Hey Ulysses,

 

Did you look up O'Rielly's lies regarding JFK/Oswald yet?

 

Or his lies about being fired upon in El Salvador?

 

Or, are you content in avoiding facts and preferring this:

Edited August 18, 2016 by iReason

[Ulysses G.]

It is not my job to Google your every claim. If you want to make such assertions, PROVE IT.

[iReason]

^^^

You mean like these assertions you have made?

Back 'em up.

 

"However, Bill O'Reilly, ...and others are trustworthy and sincere."

 

 

Like all Trumpeteers;

You got nothin'.

 

Except, but, but, but, Hillary.

But, but, but, Obama...

Edited August 18, 2016 by iReason

[Ulysses G.]

Sounds like you are avoiding providing any evidence for your claims. Just what I thought.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

O'Reilly defended himself by asserting that, “As any honest historian knows in order to keep slaves and free laborers strong, the Washington administration provided meat, bread and other staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building,” said O’Reilly. “That is a fact. Not a justification, not a defense of slavery. Just a fact.”

What, it is a fact because Bill O'Reilly said so? What 'honest historians' have said so? How is this a fact exactly? Who says you need to give slaves meat, bread and other staples to keep them strong? they did not do that, they worked them until they died and brought in more!

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Jesse J. Holland, who wrote a book on slaves who built the White House, noted that the slaves were housed in a barn and were provided with food

They were housed in barns and given food in Belsen! Ever checked in to the quality of the food? Was it good to keep them healthy and strong for the slave labour?..............Nope!

 

Your arguments to defend the indefensible are simply dreadful. You would get far more respect if when Bill O'Reilly screws up you said "yup, he screwed up', but to defend his comments concerning slavery you display no moral ethics.

[Ulysses G.]

20 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Who says you need to give slaves meat, bread and other staples to keep them strong? they did not do that, they worked them until they died and brought in more!

 

 

 

We are talking specifically about the slaves who built the White House. PROVE IT - "they worked them until they died and brought in more" - if you can.

 

You can't prove O'Reilly screwed up and you can't prove the housing and food was less than "decent".  You are deflecting as usual and being adamant about it does not help your usual weak "arguments" - i.e. insults, baiting and fiction.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.