The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Some 'journalists' view Trump as a dangerous candidate for President. So they find it necessary to adjust their journalistic standards accordingly. 
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ate.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ate.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
Last edited:
Journalistic bias didn't get created when Trump announced his candidacy, it started more or less in the 1960s after the Kennedy assassination, found a foothold with Nixon, and found its acceptance with Bill Clinton, and became the journalistic standard with Obama. Back in Nixon's time the press were warned by established and respected journalists their dereliction of duty impartiality, and it was a renewed warning during the Bill Clinton presidency, but they dismissed it, and lost all credibility in doing so.Some 'journalists' view Trump as a dangerous candidate for President. So they find it necessary to adjust their journalistic standards accordingly.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ate.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
It's how we end up with an unabashed article like this defending yellow journalism, and it's how we get absurdly ridiculous statements like, "It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world."
There are no real journalistic standards any more, only click bait.
The media bias is so ingrained at this point that they don't even see it. Dood in the lower right of the video below mentions how Trump was being sarcastic when he talked about Russia hacking Clinton's emails, and the same Brian Stelter mentioned in the Times article is beside himself, not believing that Trump was only kidding, questioning him on that. When Dood responded that both Trump and Paul Manafort said he was kidding, Stelter responded with "That was laaaater," as if "later" had any bearing on the media's continued reporting that Trump had asked Putin to get involved in the election.
Why Trump voters say the media is biased - CNN Video
How would David Brinkley cover this election?
Brinkley Quotes
Brinkley Quotes
- ”People have the illusion that all over the world, all the time, all kinds of fantastic things are happening. When in fact, over most of the world, most of the time, nothing is happening.”[8]
- ”Washington, D.C. is a city filled with people who believe they are important.”[9]
If somebody does take a shot at Hillary, Trump needs to be charged as a co-conspiritor
Why? He was talking about Hillary picking judges that would scuttle the personal possession of firearms, thereby virtually eliminating the Second Amendment, and if she is elected there's nothing anyone can do about it, except maybe the Second Amendment people who have a strong history of lobbying in favor of the Second Amendment and against gun control laws that chip away at it.
Any other interpretative reading into what he said, especially by those who selectively edit what he said to be out of context, is nothing more than drag queen-level drama. He meant exactly what he said, not what some people want to read into it. He didn't advocate violence in any way, shape or form. If anyone thinks otherwise, please quote his words here in support of that.
It doesn't matter what he meant, what matters is what some lunatic thinks he meant.
He might call another Clinton a 'bore'.
"And it's one reason this group is so terrific. Bill Clinton has none of it. He has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore, and will always be a bore."
David Brinkley Signs Off With Blast at Clinton
Hillary's rallies are tightly controlled. Audiences, specifically in view behind the her are carefully selected. The fact the shooter's father was sitting on stage behind her was no accident IMO. The father has stated that he is for the Democrat party and supports Clinton for President. (Which is fine.That is his perogitive.) Just wonder how the media would treat Trump having the father of the SC church shooter sitting behind him at a rally and stating that he supports Trump. They would be hounding Trump.
They are going to have that response regardless of what he says. The left leaning media has already said they would color anything he says because they think he is "dangerous". So it is ok to fabricate anything possible to make him look bad. Not my words, their omission.
If we elect Bill Clinton, kiss the 2nd Amendment good-bye. If we elect Obama, he'll come for your guns. Hillary will eliminate the 2nd Amendment. And they fall for it every time. And every time the gun people hear it, they rush out to buy more guns and ammo "while they still can". Guess who laughs all the way to the bank every time that happens...
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
Yep that one's true
I've often wandered
Why are the liberals from the states that major gun manufacturers are hand in hand
Gun sales are down
Yall need to talk about gun control
Sales up
Let it be for a while
Huh? Fall for it? Bill Clinton became the first Democratic presidential candidate to campaign on promises of stricter gun control infringement law, and he made good on his promises. The Brady Bill died a merciful death during the Bush administration because it so blatantly violated the "shall not be infringed" thingy. Bill Clinton revived the bill, got it passed, and signed it into law. Then he got the assault weapons ban passed and signed that into law. In the 1994 midterm election when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives and he couldn't get further legislation passed, he simply turned to Executive Order to infringe a little more on the Second Amendment,expanding the definition of "assault weapon" and adding new restrictions on who could own guns (among them, anyone convicted of spousal abuse could not).
Nobody "fell for" anything - that actually happened.
Then Obama campaigns on gun control, pretends he's pro Second Amendment by on the one hand signing into law a bill that allows people to carry guns in National Parks, while the other hand is making certain kinds of widely available ammunition no longer available to the public, introducing background checks for ammunition purchases, and restricting and tracking the amount of ammunition one can buy.
Nobody "fell for" anything - that actually happened.
Hillary Clinton is campaigning on further gun restrictions, including a complete rewrite of the Second Amendment so as to be interpreted to mean strictly militia member ownership of guns and not personal ownership of guns.
OK, you're right, we're falling for that one. History tells us we'd better fall for it.
As for who is laughing all the way to the bank, that would be the pension funds of government and teachers unions who have a lot of shares in Smith and Wesson.
Windsor
Veteran Expediter
I don't know a single person who has lost a gun. The only time a politician even mentions guns is during an election or after a mass shooting. The topic is used to get votes in both directions, we all know that. And after a mass shooting what is a president supposed to say? That guns should be easier to obtain? There may be a time when our society don't have guns but it won't be in my life time for sure. I own 11 of them and I'm not worried about being able to pass them on to my children and grandchildren.
Gun buyback program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This could happen in the U.S. Australia 1996, The buyback included semiauto and pump 22 cal rimfires long guns.
jimmy
This could happen in the U.S. Australia 1996, The buyback included semiauto and pump 22 cal rimfires long guns.
jimmy