Trump goes on tear against media, not Clinton

[Si Thea01]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Yes

 

 

Can't acknowledge the first question I see.  Picking and choosing are we, there were only two questions?  As for your answer, it only highlights that you are of the left and totally biased towards anything that does not fit the agenda. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Can't acknowledge the first question I see.  Picking and choosing are we, there were only two questions?  As for your answer, it only highlights that you are of the left and totally biased towards anything that does not fit the agenda. 

What proof do you have that the polls whose results you distrust are actually biased?  Can you accept the fact that these same criticisms were leveled by the right at these polls in 2012 and the polls turned out to be overwhelmingly correct. In fact, on average, they slightly understated Obama's victory margin.

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Can't acknowledge the first question I see.  Picking and choosing are we, there were only two questions?  As for your answer, it only highlights that you are of the left and totally biased towards anything that does not fit the agenda. 

 

No I am not firmly dedicated to the left of politics, but I completely reject the hard right and those who espouse hard right ideology.

 

By the way there was recently a fact check on the claims by Trump compared to Clinton in speeches to date during the election campaign; something like 60+% incorrect / misleading claims by Trump versus around 16% by Clinton.

[Si Thea01]

17 hours ago, Chicog said:

17 hours ago, Chicog said:

17 hours ago, Chicog said:

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

No I am not firmly dedicated to the left of politics, but I completely reject the hard right and those who espouse hard right ideology.

 

By the way there was recently a fact check on the claims by Trump compared to Clinton in speeches to date during the election campaign; something like 60+% incorrect / misleading claims by Trump versus around 16% by Clinton.

 

 

Good for you then.  And who did the fact checking.  Would you also like to mention that 68 percent of the American people find Hilary dishonest.  I know there are those who also find trump dishonest, however, as  I do not know the percentage I will not put a figure here.

[simple1]

20 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

who did the fact checking. 

 

Don't remember, here's another one...

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

 

[Publicus]

 

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Si Thea01 said:

<snip>

another poll conducted in a most fair way, unlike the other BS polls, included 33 percent Democrats, 33 percent Republicans and 34 percent independents, in every one of the 50 states, a total of 50,000 voters.  Guess who it is showing as being out in front and by a mile, no sorry, not Hilary but Donald, who is on 69 percent, Hilary on 19 percent with the balance going to the independents. But I guess the obvious haters will come out and give us the unusual spiel as to why this is not correct. 

<snip>

Most fair way indeed.

 

So meticulously fair and so carefully balanced as to be a perfect plastic fireproof Xmas tree.

 

The poll is not real. It is in fact pretentious and it is disingenuous. It is at a minimum wrong. Further, the poll may be outright dishonest, however, I'd reserve judgement on the last item. For the present time.

 

It is the likely voter who matters. The electorate that shows up on election day is not evenly balanced nor do they have an equal distribution of party or ideological loyalties and beliefs. 

 

While it is informative for instance to know what all registered voters believe, it is exactly to the point to find out who is the likely voter on election day. Upwards of 60% of all registered voters actually go out to vote on election day. So 40% of all registered voters are irrelevant and immaterial to the outcome of the voting. It is up to each campaign to identify the likely voter from the absent one, and to get information to that voter to help persuade the voter and, vitally, to get that voter out of the house on election day to actually vote. Anyone who uses a poll and polling for anything less than this is fiddling. 

 

In the 2012 Potus election, exit polling (Edison Research) found that 38% of voters were Democrats, 32% were Republicans, 29% were independents. This sets your perfectly balanced and equal poll back into la-la land from whence it came. (You are polite in your posting so I won't call you a rightwingnut.)

 

It just needs to be said flat out the entire paradigm of your poll is wrong. It is the plastic fireproof Xmas tree that falls over at the crack of dawn Christmas morning. The whole of the poll you cite is not only wrong, it is pretentious, at least concerning your use of it in your post. 

 

Btw, your sympathy for Donald Trump comes through clearly and unmistakably in each and every one of your posts. The neutral person in this election is rare...as rare as the plastic fireproof Xmas tree that doesn't fall over at the crack of dawn on Xmas day. 

 

Non-existent. 

 

Most people in a radically decisive election as the present one is and who present themselves as neutral, would also add that they are unattached, i.e, not in either political party or not even a citizen -- disassociated; disconnected. It is often the natural disposition of the person suffering from anomie to favor the outsider -- and the more radical the outsider is toward the existing constitutional order, the better for the person out there on the margins looking in ever so approvingly. From out there at the distant fringe.

[Publicus]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Jingthing said:

You couldn't make up trump. He's desperate now and he will get MORE desperate as this progresses. It won't be pretty but we'll just HAVE to watch.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/biting-the-hand-that-feeds-him/495899/

 

 

Indeed and also to the point, it looks like Trump got sick and tired of winning but that now Trump is sick and tired of losing...

 

And who can forget when he bragged that "We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning." Apparently Trump has reached that apex of winning. Having become sick and tired of it, as he predicted, he has abandoned it in favor of losing more pitifully than any presidential candidate before him. He's bound and determined to be the best loser with the hugest, most tremendous losses ever. Losing"big league," you might say.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/538232387661 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Good for you then.  And who did the fact checking.  Would you also like to mention that 68 percent of the American people find Hilary dishonest.  I know there are those who also find trump dishonest, however, as  I do not know the percentage I will not put a figure here.

And you trust that poll? Why?

[Scotwight]

Trump is going after the media because 100% of the election stories on Thai Visa are anti Trump and no one has seen fit to mention it has been 260 days since Hillary has had a news conference.  The media bias (even TV) is amazing If anyone will watch the debates the truth will come out.  

[Boon Mee]

Of course Trump is going on a tear against the biased media.  Who wouldn't in his shoes?  

 

Ran across the following on-topic quote:

 

"We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this!" (Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)

[Berkshire]

27 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Of course Trump is going on a tear against the biased media.  Who wouldn't in his shoes?  

 

Ran across the following on-topic quote:

 

"We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this!" (Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)

 

Rush Limbaugh?  You're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?  Geez, Boon Mee, do you ever read or quote anyone who isn't a far right nutbag?

[Boon Mee]

^

Sorry...guess I'll have to read more Huffpo and Salon, eh? 

 

The fact remains w/out media bias, Trump would be 20 points or more ahead right now...

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

 

The fact remains w/out media bias, Trump would be 20 points or more ahead right now...

 

Sorry, that is not a "fact" that is a supposition.

 

I get a kick out of people complaining that the media has a bias towards Hillary and then complain she never holds a press conference. If she held a press conference there would be gnashing of teeth that why does Hillary get all the coverage?

 

The "fact" is that they are both in the public spotlight where any stated comment is chewed over ad nauseum until any semblance to the original comment is lost in a sea of skewed views and opinions.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

^

Sorry...guess I'll have to read more Huffpo and Salon, eh? 

 

The fact remains w/out media bias, Trump would be 20 points or more ahead right now...

That's your idea of a fact?  Still, reality does slowly seem to be penetrating your mind. Before you would have said that Trump actually is ahead by 20 points now.

[Publicus]

 

Joe McCarthy got a free ride from the media. McCarthy got a free ride from everyone as he lied and destroyed lives and institutions. Anyone who'd try to defend or apologise for Joe McCarthy would also love Donald Trump.

 

And now Donald Trump in his time is being called to account by the media. Rightfully so. Other institutions of the society are speaking up too as are civil society. Youse guyz over there on the radical fringe right aren't getting away with the nasty stuff this time around.

 

It is an entirely different century with completely different standards, values, mores, expectations. The US political system instinctively shuts down the demagogue. In the instance of Joe McCarthy it was only later, after he'd failed, but the point had been made by all the rejection directed to McCarthy after the fact.

 

This time we're dealing with the radical crackpopt wildman ignoramus Trump in a precisely timely fashion. His fanboyz hate it that they finally have the messiah of their lifetime but that he is going down the crapper, so it is a big blow to 'em. They're just going to have to suck it up however -- and forever after this. 

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

 

Rush Limbaugh?  You're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?  Geez, Boon Mee, do you ever read or quote anyone who isn't a far right nutbag?

 

I am not a Rush fan. I do not listen to him. However, he makes excellent points from time to time and this is one of them. The MSM are out to get Hillary elected... by any means nessasary.

[boomerangutang]

A tax expert and panel agree:  Trump probably paid little or no taxes last year, due to manipulating the tax rules with crafty tax lawyers.  Sounds a lot like Thaksin not paying any taxes on his multi-billion baht sale of AIS to Singapore's Temasak.  

 

Donald Trump saying, "Believe me, I would love to release my tax returns." is akin to me saying, "believe me, I would love to jump nude into a large cactus bush."

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

45 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I am not a Rush fan. I do not listen to him. However, he makes excellent points from time to time and this is one of them. The MSM are out to get Hillary elected... by any means nessasary.

 

The same people who say Trump makes sense once in a great while and the same folks who say Limbaugh makes sense once in a great while.   

 

So what do they say that's smart?   Here are some samples;

 

"ISIS is bad.  They're the enemy.  They must be defeated."

"Air pollution is bad.  We must clean up air."

"Infant mortality is bad.  We must do what we can to lessen it."

"American jobs are going to China.  We must bring back jobs."

 

.....you get the picture?  It's not hard for even an ignorant blohard to make some sense once in awhile.  I wouldn't doubt even Hitler and Mussolini made some good points at rare times.   Americans are not concerned about insipid vapidity.  They instead want a leader who has specific policy suggestions which will tangibly help the populace.  The best Americans get from the likes of Limbaugh and Trump is hot air, and it can't even be channeled to toast bread.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

 

So what do they say that's smart?  

 

 

You seem to listen to Rush a lot more than I do. Like I said, I am not a fan. However he is right about the MSM shamelessly backing Hillary. I give him credit for that.

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

"Believe me, I would love to release my tax returns."

In fact he has provided his tax returns to unknown degrees to tranche lenders and financial institutions being asked to finance his projects and businesses. But unlike lenders Trump can't get a confidentiality agreement with the American public.

[Berkshire]

This is a very interesting take on why Trump isn't Tweeting about the Olympics.  In short, the Olympics is showing why Trump is wrong.  That America is winning.  Trump just can't deal with reality, whether it's sports or anything else...

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/donald-trump-olympics-twitter-214176

[Pinot]

On 8/16/2016 at 8:27 AM, Andaman Al said:

You were doing so well till you tried to tie Trump to Brexit. There is not a racist bone in my body, and i have 3 succesful businesses ( no bankruptcy!) one of which is dependent fully on the UK economy. I was Brexit to get rid of the ridiculous wasteful financial burden and UK laws being overwritten by extreme left wing idiots. Look at the trade figures. Europe needs the UK and they are not going to want to stop trading are they.  Trumps fantasy policies can hardly be compared to the Brexit situation.

 

Sorry I took a couple of days responding. 

 

As far as I've been able to grasp. The Brits became the stupidest country on the face of the earth by deciding to significantly hurt themselves, voting  FOR Brexit because (1) Misguided Nationalism believing that the fees for being in the EURO were onerous (2) Just outright racism in the mistaken belief that Brexit would keep those &lt;deleted&gt; out of our neighborhood.  

 

Of course there is a direct connection between the low-info Brexit asshats and the low-info Trump asshats. Jeesh. 

[Pinot]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

In fact he has provided his tax returns to unknown degrees to tranche lenders and financial institutions being asked to finance his projects and businesses. But unlike lenders Trump can't get a confidentiality agreement with the American public.

 

"Believe me," should always be interpreted as: Get ready for some more unadulterated bullshit. 

[Pinot]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You seem to listen to Rush a lot more than I do. Like I said, I am not a fan. However he is right about the MSM shamelessly backing Hillary. I give him credit for that.

 

MSM, MSM, the main stream media. STOP! See Dana Perino today. Even that shameless excuse for a human being, called bullshit today. The "MSM" isn't shamelessly backing Hillary. They went to college. Some of them have degrees in journalism. They're for the most part (Faux News exclusion clause here) pretty smart people. They can think and they can write. They have no choice. They have an ounce of integrity. There is only one possible choice for President. And it ain't cheeto jesus. 

 

Stop with the false flag, MSM bullshit. It doesn't hold water. The candidate is completely unsuitable to be POTUS

[thaihome]

7 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Of course Trump is going on a tear against the biased media.  Who wouldn't in his shoes?  

 

Ran across the following on-topic quote:

 

"We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this!" (Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)

 

Not exactly what the article says.  It certainly pointed at a number of issues with Hillary so not "pro-Hillary ".  A rather typical tactic of Limbaugh is take the position you are either agree with me or you must be against me. 

 

The point of the article is it is difficult to maintain an objective point of view in reporting someone like Trump as he so often says outright falsehoods,  half truths and insults people based on race, gender, or religion.  

 

There has never been a candidate in the modern area that behaved this way. Maybe George Wallace in 1968, and his campaign based on maintaining segregation. He used the "n" word often, but it was never reported in the media of the day.

 

You won't like it, but here is the link to read it

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0

TH 

 

 

 

[Throatwobbler]

15 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Actually, you asked two questions, the first asking why did I apparently blindly accept the truthfulness of the content.  If that is not assumptive, then what is? 

 

As for the 2nd question, yes, I noted who was behind it, so does it, as you state, being aligned to the far right / evangelical Christian / conspiracy theorists, make this poll any less reputable  than the other polls?

so does it, as you state, being aligned to the far right / evangelical Christian / conspiracy theorists, make this poll any less reputable  than the other polls? 

Simple answer is yes. Just as any poll conducted by  left wing organisation lose credibility. The current polls though are being run by the normal people. Those that predicted an Obama win, and guess what he won.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Throatwobbler

[Freakin Musashi]

On 8/14/2016 at 5:29 PM, Johnniey said:

Sadly the average Yank will not admit this due to a national pride. Similar to not accepting the atrocities Bush is responsible for, the 9/11 thing etc.

Maybe the average Yank is more qualified to comment on US politics than the average Brit.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Freakin Musashi

[boomerangutang]

Trump loves media when it's praising him.

 

Trump hates media when it quotes him directly. For example, "maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about her, I don't know"

 

Trump loves poll numbers when they show him ahead.  He can't stop shouting about it from the stump.

 

When poll numbers show Hillary ahead in 'battleground states' , Trump says polls mean nothing.

 

As I've been saying, Trump has the temperament of a bratty 9 year old girl.  Everything in his world is either love or hate. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by boomerangutang

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Trump hates media when it quotes him directly. For example, "maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about her, I don't know"

 

 

Yeah. Like vote her out of office. Trump hates the media when they distort his words.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Si Thea01]

5 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

so does it, as you state, being aligned to the far right / evangelical Christian / conspiracy theorists, make this poll any less reputable  than the other polls? 

Simple answer is yes. Just as any poll conducted by  left wing organisation lose credibility. The current polls though are being run by the normal people. Those that predicted an Obama win, and guess what he won.

 

 

At least you look at both sides re credibility but I would suggest you check out the so called normal people running the polls. You would find it very interesting to see who is actually behind many of them.  And no, if you want any links, I am not prepared to go back over them, suggest a little research would help you.

 

The Obama thing was four and again almost eight years ago, I think on this occasion the times are a changing.  A week in politics is a long time, just think how long three months will be.   I predict there will be quite a few changes coming over the horizon and maybe many that some on here will not like. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Si Thea01