Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on June 11, 2017, 10:57:16 AM
-
I tried searching Google, Yahoo, and Bing for stories about media lies about Trump, but all I could find were stories about Trump lies. Nothing about media lies. Funny how that works.
Does anyone have a source for such a list?
-
I have a list, but it's so big I can't get it into the same room my computer is in, so there's not much help there......
-
Well, here's a partial list:
Donald Trump was under FBI investigation. (all media)
Donald Trump hired Moscow hookers to urinate on a bed in which Michelle and Barack Obama had once slept (Washington Post, Buzzfeed, UK Guardian).
There was a post-election movement of electors to defy their constitutional duties and vote for Hillary (NY Times)
Once Trump was elected, transgender people began killing themselves in alarming numbers (Time Magazine)
There were mass resignations at the State Department after Trump was inaugurated (Washington Post)
Trump sought an order to ban all Muslims from entering the US
Melania Trump worked as an escort (UK Guardian)
Melania and Barron would not be moving to the White House
Barron is autistic
Kellyanne Conway said in a private conversation on MSNBC that she needs to take a shower after working for Trump (MSNBC).
Trump told the president of Mexico that the US was going to invade Mexico (Associate Press, ABC)
Trump planned to mobilize the National Guard to send back illegal aliens
Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office (Time Magazine)
Trump promised Russia he would ease sanctions after inauguration (NBC)
Trump cut the resources of the FBI for the Russian investigation (NY Times)
Trump's deputy attorney general threatened to resign after firing of Comey (Washington Post, CNBC, NY Post, ABC News, etc)
Trump cannot find the light switch in the White House
A group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers found persuasive evidence that election results in WI, MI and PA had been hacked. (NY Magazine, Politico Twitter feed, NY Times Twitter feed)
Trump's cabinet pick, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that foreclosed on a 90 year-old woman after a 27 cent payment error (Politico, NY Times, Twitter feed, NBC Twitter feed)
Nancy Sinatra complained about Trump using her father's song "My Way" for the inauguration dance (CNN)
Trump had the White House website purged of any references to "climate change" (NY Times)
Trump hung up on president of Australia (Washington Post, ABC News, NY Times, CNBC, etc)
In foreign policy briefing, Trump asked why US can't use nukes (MSNBC)
Trump campaign officials had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials (NY Times)
-
Just click wapo.
-
Just click wapo.
Or CNNMSNBCABCNBCCBS
-
Just click wapo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/is-media-coverage-of-trump-too-negative-youre-asking-the-wrong-question/2017/06/11/b0bc93aa-4d0f-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html?utm_term=.0b5718aa02b4
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/is-media-coverage-of-trump-too-negative-youre-asking-the-wrong-question/2017/06/11/b0bc93aa-4d0f-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html?utm_term=.0b5718aa02b4
God, I loathe the media. I hope they all burn in Hell.
-
God, I loathe the media. I hope they all burn in Hell.
I guess they can't complain that you gave them some bad coverage.
Or covfefe.
-
At the risk of once again being a thread veerer, besides that WaPo article, we have Kristen Gillebrand dropping the F bomb about Trump during a public speaking engagement because it's apparently the cool way to have public discourse now because Trump. Then we have Shakespeare in the Park doing "Julius Caesar" with a Trump look alike being stabbed to death to cheering crowds, because Trump (kudos to Delta and Bank of America for pulling out of their support for the play).
Maybe some of the older guys can weigh in, but as bad as it was, I do not remember anything anywhere near this bad with Reagan. Certainly we have mentioned before that part of this is the "more news than you can use everywhere and all the time" society we live in now, but I just don't remember anything this vicious, and I have never before been worked up about it like I am now. I'm at the point where I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him just because of these fools.
And that's how you get Trump.
-
^ "Maybe some of the older guys can weigh in, but as bad as it was, I do not remember anything anywhere near this bad with Reagan. Certainly we have mentioned before that part of this is the "more news than you can use everywhere and all the time" society we live in now, but I just don't remember anything this vicious, and I have never before been worked up about it like I am now."
✔
"I'm at the point where I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him just because of these fools."
✔
Terry
-
My uncle said the media was almost as bad during the beginning of Reagan's first term, when they declared he would start WW3. Is this true?
-
My uncle said the media was almost as bad during the beginning of Reagan's first term, when they declared he would start WW3. Is this true?
I remember plenty of WW3 apocalypse stuff. Also various liberal groups and private citizens hanging and burning Reagan in effigy. I remember (some) celebrities being almost as bad as now. I remember some media bias, but mostly from publications like Rolling Stone, etc. What I don't remember is the vehemence (e.g., Maxine Waters) of elected officials and their practically "overthrow" state of mind.
I was only in my late teens - early twenties though, so probably didn't pay as much attention as I do now.
-
Nixon was probably the media's least favorite president, but their negative coverage of him was nothing like Trump.
-
^ "Maybe some of the older guys can weigh in, but as bad as it was, I do not remember anything anywhere near this bad with Reagan. Certainly we have mentioned before that part of this is the "more news than you can use everywhere and all the time" society we live in now, but I just don't remember anything this vicious, and I have never before been worked up about it like I am now."
✔"I'm at the point where I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him just because of these fools."✔Terry
They were as bad .... just not as LOUD. Reagan was before the internet and "social media." There were libtards after him and yes some thought he was going to start WW3. Reagan fed that somewhat when he didn't realize there was a live microphone and joked, "the missiles start flying in 30 minutes," or something similar.
People accused Reagan of sneaking out of the White House at night, stealing homeless peoples' cans of pork & beans, skulking back into the WH, and scarfing it all down, laughing.
One of the first things Reagan had to do was fire the air traffic controllers, who'd gone on strike illegally. His enemies had a field day, his supporters supported it as a necessary "making bones" to show he was serious when he laid out his agenda, and we learned later it deeply impressed the Soviets in much the same way.
It WAS different back then ....but there were still libtards...............
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkUzU9OiDI
And yes, they were just as vehement, I remember all the "Peace" marches and the "Peace" movements which were organized and supported by...wait for it......THE RUSSIANS (Soviets actually, but close enough)....
Because there was no CNN (or it was just in it's infancy), there was no 24-hour News Cycle. With all the breathless reporting to try to make ratings. Newpapers were still big, as was the nightly news, controlled by the big three, all of which stayed on script. And they did everything they could to destroy Reagan, but they still had a modicum of shame and decency. Since GWB, they learned that by constantly and continuously beating on the president they could destroy the support for his policies and over the man himself in the court of public opinion. Go ahead, post on FB or other Social Media, that you think that GWB was a good or even great president. Even those that agree with you will couch their praise in "But" statements. (e.g. "I agree with you, BUT he made a mistake going into Iraq.")
They are out to destroy the man. And they figure that if they just keep turning up the heat and pressure, that at some point, he'll break or even better, make a mistake that they can really get him on. They are positive there was "collusion" between him and the Russians, even though Comey, Clapper, et al, have said repeatedly, under oath, they've seen no evidence of it. I can't wait until Robert Mueller comes out and says it. The left will absolutely lose their *expletive deleted*it.
And I just can't for the life of me figure it out. This guy is the guy folks like Charby should love. Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative. You would think the left would love the fact that this guy is a New York City liberal (I mean, he was born and raised there, unlike Hillary), this guy should have been 50 points ahead the entire race.
But I guess financial success trumps all that....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkUzU9OiDI
And yes, they were just as vehement, I remember all the "Peace" marches and the "Peace" movements which were organized and supported by...wait for it......THE RUSSIANS (Soviets actually, but close enough)....
Because there was no CNN (or it was just in it's infancy), there was no 24-hour News Cycle. With all the breathless reporting to try to make ratings. Newpapers were still big, as was the nightly news, controlled by the big three, all of which stayed on script. And they did everything they could to destroy Reagan, but they still had a modicum of shame and decency. Since GWB, they learned that by constantly and continuously beating on the president they could destroy the support for his policies and over the man himself in the court of public opinion. Go ahead, post on FB or other Social Media, that you think that GWB was a good or even great president. Even those that agree with you will couch their praise in "But" statements. (e.g. "I agree with you, BUT he made a mistake going into Iraq.")
They are out to destroy the man. And they figure that if they just keep turning up the heat and pressure, that at some point, he'll break or even better, make a mistake that they can really get him on. They are positive there was "collusion" between him and the Russians, even though Comey, Clapper, et al, have said repeatedly, under oath, they've seen no evidence of it. I can't wait until Robert Mueller comes out and says it. The left will absolutely lose their *expletive deleted*it.
And I just can't for the life of me figure it out. This guy is the guy folks like Charby should love. Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative. You would think the left would love the fact that this guy is a New York City liberal (I mean, he was born and raised there, unlike Hillary), this guy should have been 50 points ahead the entire race.
But I guess financial success trumps all that....
I think the 24 hour news cycle is part of the problem. Honestly, what news is actually important enough to have shows on more than 1 hour each day?
It's kind of like the ESPN problem. Just how much sports is there to be talking about it for 24 hours a day?
I have no idea how to FIX this problem, either. The market bears these 24 hour news shows, so they're going to find something to fill them with.
All I know is that everyday the Mennonites and Amish are looking more and more appealing.
Or at least this place: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141010-radio-telescope-green-bank-west-virginia-astronomy/
-
A buddy recently sent me a link to this place, which also sounds appealing these days:
https://www.survivalrealty.com/united-states/idaho/mary-nuckols/salmon-river-wildness-ranch-tramway-access-only/
-
A buddy recently sent me a link to this place, which also sounds appealing these days:
https://www.survivalrealty.com/united-states/idaho/mary-nuckols/salmon-river-wildness-ranch-tramway-access-only/
Ah, to have $1.7M lying around....
-
I think the 24 hour news cycle is part of the problem. Honestly, what news is actually important enough to have shows on more than 1 hour each day?
It's kind of like the ESPN problem. Just how much sports is there to be talking about it for 24 hours a day?
I have no idea how to FIX this problem, either. The market bears these 24 hour news shows, so they're going to find something to fill them with.
All I know is that everyday the Mennonites and Amish are looking more and more appealing.
Or at least this place: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141010-radio-telescope-green-bank-west-virginia-astronomy/
ESPN still has the issue, yet they created the ESPN Classic channel to re-run old games. WTF?
In regards to your Green Bank selection, I hate to burst your bubble. https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/11/nsf-may-shut-down-west-virginias-green-bank-telescope-and-people-arent-happy/ (https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/11/nsf-may-shut-down-west-virginias-green-bank-telescope-and-people-arent-happy/)
-
I cut the cable and shutdown the satellite 7 years ago. Don't miss it.
Which is why ESPN is laying off tons of people. Newspapers are dead, but too stupid to fall over. TV is going the same route, but a bit more slowly...
-
I cut the cable and shutdown the satellite 7 years ago. Don't miss it.
Which is why ESPN is laying off tons of people. Newspapers are dead, but too stupid to fall over. TV is going the same route, but a bit more slowly...
We cut the cable about 8 years ago. We used that monthly savings to pay for 2 years of martial arts lessons for our nephew, best investment we ever made.
-
We cut the cable about 8 years ago.
Never had a cable to cut.
OK, except for the internet cable, but that's not really a cable. It's a tube.
-
ESPN still has the issue, yet they created the ESPN Classic channel to re-run old games. WTF?
In regards to your Green Bank selection, I hate to burst your bubble. https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/11/nsf-may-shut-down-west-virginias-green-bank-telescope-and-people-arent-happy/ (https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/11/nsf-may-shut-down-west-virginias-green-bank-telescope-and-people-arent-happy/)
I noticed that while looking for an article. Hey, just shutting down the telescope doesn't change the laws, though.
Maybe bureaucratic/legal inertia will work in my favor here!
-
Anyone have a source for a list of false media stories about Trump?
I heard Comey's testimony was a pretty good source. :lol:
-
I'm at the point where I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him just because of these fools.
There are some interesting parallels to Bill Clinton and this attitude:
He inspired such fanatical devotion (and gratitude for his key policy decisions) that men and women were willing to lie for him, sacrifice their principles for him, and in one notorious case even go to jail to protect him. He was the movement. The movement was him.
...
He so convinced the party and its people that its fortunes were his fortunes that virtually any means justified the ends of Bill Clinton’s political survival.
I don't think the end result is good for conservatism.
-
There are also some interesting parallels to Bill Clinton and this attitude:I don't think the end result is good for conservatism.
I had found myself over the past 8 years thinking that I'd love to have Bill Clinton back over leftist Obama. When Bill got smacked by the electorate, he responded and changed. Obama doubled down.
I'm fairly certain we've gotten the third term for Bill Clinton. (It wasn't Hillary running for it, but Trump.)
-
There are some interesting parallels to Bill Clinton and this attitude:I don't think the end result is good for conservatism.
Except those of us with the "That's how you got Trump" attitude are not devoted to Trump. We mostly just hate preachy whiners that want to tell us how to live. We're pretty much the opposite of the people that were devoted to Clinton and Obama. You won't ever see me wearing a "Trump as Christ" tshirt (though I would wear a "Mattis as Christ tshirt =D ) or walking around mesmerized, or lying for Trump.
My voting against Hillary Clinton wasn't bad for conservatism, IMO.
-
Except those of us with the "That's how you got Trump" attitude are not devoted to Trump.
Maybe the source of your devotion is different but if you truly mean what you said "I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him" then the result is effectively the same.
-
Maybe the source of your devotion is different but if you truly mean what you said "I don't care how bad Trump is or becomes, I'm supporting him" then the result is effectively the same.
Seriously? You can't tell what venting is? Which is fairly clear in the context of my full post, plus all the other posts where I'm complaining about SJWs, antifas, and buttinski celebrities.
If fistful, whose fault everything is, aggravates me and I say, "man, I could kill that guy!", are we taking that literally as well?
Not to mention that I might not care what's good or bad for conservatism, given that I'm a republitarian. Our politics aren't binary.
-
I had found myself over the past 8 years thinking that I'd love to have Bill Clinton back over leftist Obama. When Bill got smacked by the electorate, he responded and changed. Obama doubled down.
I'm fairly certain we've gotten the third term for Bill Clinton. (It wasn't Hillary running for it, but Trump.)
Bill Clinton did not really change. He had a Congressional Republican majority after the first two years that only knuckled under a little bit and that forced him to compromise some. He then took credit for all positive results. Plus, Clinton himself was never as much of a leftist as his wife, but that may just be my impression. I don't know how much I was paying attention at the time.
-
There are some interesting parallels to Bill Clinton and this attitude:I don't think the end result is good for conservatism.
Looking at the actual results so far of the Trump administration, what sort of conservative results are you looking for? Do you have in mind someone else who would have done better?
If you ignore the tweets and all the media noise, he is probably the most conservative President since Reagan. That really isn't saying much, but it is significant. The Bushes set the bar low IMO. I am not sure I can put a grade on his SC nominee yet, but that looks good so far. It looks like his administration is working to reduce regulatory burden which hasn't seemed to happen in quite some time.
I don't see Trump as any sort of super-conservative or anything. I didn't think he was a year ago either. I just liked his attitude and the way he refused to knuckle under to the media. Will I still be happy with him in 3 more years? I don't know. My main goal to make sure my opinion of him is my own and not dictated to me by the media or any dislike of his style.
-
Seriously? You can't tell what venting is? Which is fairly clear in the context of my full post, plus all the other posts where I'm complaining about SJWs, antifas, and buttinski celebrities.
If fistful, whose fault everything is, aggravates me and I say, "man, I could kill that guy!", are we taking that literally as well?
I'm not saying that I believe that Trump could literally do anything (stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody) and you would still support him. However, I do believe you were trying to express something with that statement that parallels what was described in the article. I could be wrong.
what sort of conservative results are you looking for? Do you have in mind someone else who would have done better?
When I say the end result will not be good, I'm talking longer term. He will make good decisions, he already has and will likely appoint more good judges (Jonah Goldberg aptly called Gorsuch "the everlasting gobstopper of Trump rationalizations") and he might even make some other improvements in areas consistent with conservative desires. I believe there are plenty of people, Pence being an obvious one, who would do a significantly better job though.
Because the left is so loud with their complaints, people feel the need to defend Trump even when he doesn't deserve it. I see people abandoning principle and my fear is Trumpism overtaking conservatism (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447746/donald-trumps-self-inflicted-wounds-conservative-cognitive-dissonance-untenable). Many people voted for Trump as a middle finger to the establishment and hoping he would "BURN IT DOWN and (hopefully) start fresh" - that is not a conservative approach! It's pretty much the opposite.
-
I think you may have a different view from most Trump supporters about exactly what needs to be burned down. Considering a lot of Republicans were supporting Jeb Bush says a lot about the lack of importance of "conservatism" to the Republican party leadership.
-
Except those of us with the "That's how you got Trump" attitude are not devoted to Trump. We mostly just hate preachy whiners that want to tell us how to live. We're pretty much the opposite of the people that were devoted to Clinton and Obama. You won't ever see me wearing a "Trump as Christ" tshirt (though I would wear a "Mattis as Christ tshirt =D ) or walking around mesmerized, or lying for Trump.
My voting against Hillary Clinton wasn't bad for conservatism, IMO.
✔ again. We seem to live in parallel universes, Ben.
"That's how come you got Trump."
I'm not a devotee, either, but between alternate realities, I preferred Trump.
Terry
-
There are some interesting parallels to Bill Clinton and this attitude:I don't think the end result is good for conservatism.
If you think the support Trump is drawing is analogous to the sycophantic fawning Bill Clinton still gets, and to a lesser extent Hillary, you're at best delusional.
-
I think you may have a different view from most Trump supporters about exactly what needs to be burned down.
This is certainly possible. I may have taken statements too literally when people were just venting or expressing their id or whatever. At a certain point, discussion becomes pointless if people are saying things they don't mean.
-
This is certainly possible. I may have taken statements too literally when people were just venting or expressing their id or whatever. At a certain point, discussion becomes pointless if people are saying things they don't mean.
Which is part of the reason people support Trump. They are tired of establishment Republicans lying to them during campaign season (as well as the media and Democrats). It is the establishment control of the FedGov that they want to burn down.
And you have to understand that many of Trump's supporters are not politicians and some pay little attention to politics. They do not always choose their words carefully or attack the right targets. IMO, you have to view their comments through that filter.
-
Which is part of the reason people support Trump. They are tired of establishment Republicans lying to them during campaign season (as well as the media and Democrats). It is the establishment control of the FedGov that they want to burn down.
And you have to understand that many of Trump's supporters are not politicians and some pay little attention to politics. They do not always choose their words carefully or attack the right targets. IMO, you have to view their comments through that filter.
Any hyperbole by me or others aside, or the joy of looking to make snowflakes cry, the other discussion point is, what exactly is "good or bad" for conservatism? And what exactly is conservatism?
I'm not sure I hurt conservatism by saying I'm going to support Trump, even if 70% of the stuff he does is not approved of by me or people like me. Maybe guns, taxes, and small govt are enough for me to somewhat ignore stuff he does I consider bad.
After all, according to establishment conservatives, I was supposed to shut up and support JEB! regardless of how opposed I was to his policies. That was supposed to be good for conservatism. Not my "conservatism" though.
And as I've mentioned, before I decided, at the last minute, to do what many here did and throw in with Trump, whether the best of a bad situation, or to stick it to people trying to tell me what "conservatism" was, I was going to write-in Jim Mattis. That would have been me 95% voting for my flavor of conservatism. I'm not sure that would have helped as much as the vote for Trump did, whether I voted for positive or negative reasons.
-
✔ again. We seem to live in parallel universes, Ben.
Is that "great minds think alike" or something that should be scary for the other members? :laugh:
-
For those on FB, I have become a defender of (some of) Trump's policies against my more liberal friends.
For example, since I have seen, nor heard of any evidence of "collusion" nor "hacking" of the elections, and having seen excerpts of the book about the Hillary campaign, I know that "The Russians Did It", storyline is just that. A story concocted by Hillary as a way to explain her defeat.
Yet, we KNOW that Obama and Lynch Obstructed Justice in the Hillary Investigation (and the IRS, and F&F, and the VA, and others).
I do hope that Mueller does go after Comey, Lynch and Clinton with the same zeal that the D's are going after Trump. But I doubt it...
I like *most* of Trump's policies so far. I do hope that Sessions is NOT able to re-start the War on Drugs.
And in case anyone didn't know, I wrote in James Mattis/Allen B West for President/Vice President on my ballot.
-
I agree with Ben in that "conservatism" means different things to different people. I don't consider myself libertarian, but lower taxes, smaller govt, more individual freedom are things I want to see happen. A lot of Republican Congressmen, Donors, and National leaders do not seem to agree with me on that as every time they have an opportunity to do it, they find a reason to drag their feet.