Bannon

[Snoslinger]

4 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

The press gave him a free ride. Interviews where Trump wouldn't answer questions or had prearranged topics.

They let him spew his bullshit without calling him on the carpet until it was too late.

He already had you fooled.

bingo, and America tuned into it all, so it became all about ratings.

[s pump]

Yes

[Momorider]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

The press gave him a free ride. Interviews where Trump wouldn't answer questions or had prearranged topics.

They let him spew his bullshit without calling him on the carpet until it was too late.

He already had you fooled.

 

[spin_dry]

17 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Well, it may come to that and if it does, I'm gonna kill a lot of you.  But honestly, truly and sincerely, I hope it doesn't come to that.  If your side would just practice a little bit of what you preach (tolerance) and get your media to straighten the fuck up, well....we'd all be able to move toward the middle together and enjoy some nice cozy chairs in the sun while we sip champagne coolies.  And if just 70% of Americans could come together, we'd be unstoppable (and could figure out how to get the fuck out from under Saudi Arabias thumb...but that's another thread).

But if you fucking twits can't see how you are dividing and weakening this nation well, "The tree of liberty......."

Case: while the recent 90 day flight restriction may not have been perfectly implemented (but could it have ever been?), before some thought and questions could be exercised, you nut jobs hit the streets fueled by a media that should be strangled til death.  Here's what you boys missed in all of it:  Trumps administration is actually seeking a new policy that weeds out foreign bigotry and hate along with anyone who has or would and would descriminate others of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.   Now, does that sound pretty fucking good to all of us?  I'd hope so.  Did you guys see that at all on TV?  Nope.  Your information sources are HORRID. 

So, do what you want, but remember, when I say the "majority", rest assured, it is true.  And while most remain silent, I think most are ready to get violent (poem start for later).  

So....quit fucking around and the first champagne coolies are on me.  Otherwise, I may be toasting Gentleman Jack with the crows eating the eyes out of your dead fucking corpses.  And should we ever be so lucky and intelligent enough to decide to work toward a goal of a truly UNITED States, rest assured, me and people like me will punish with extreme prejudice anyone on either side who causes disruption in the process. 

Thats about as good of an olive branch as you'll ever see me holding out. Trust me.  

an olive branch that i never requested? what color is that egotistical world you live in? fuck that was rich.   

[Catman]

2 hours ago, s pump said:

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

You don't know me.

Because those are the basic tenets of liberalism and what most major news organizations uphold.

So you must disagree with them.  As a trump supporter it would be obvious you don't or you're allowing those values to be brushed to the side for the time being.

 Trump has indicated both in his campaign and now through his actions as President that he aligns more with fascism than conservativism or liberalism.

[Zambroski]

5 hours ago, Angry ginger said:

the bold is a line that a guy like Trump isn;t going to recognize i don't think and he's going to continue to divide

a point the right constantly misses,  even excluding cali he's not going to have a majority of the vote and a good chunk of his voting block is not pro trump is was anti hillary.  

 

I disagree with his support numbers. I think he is growing stronger.  People are enjoying watching the liberals squirm and a politicion that is prettig much doing what he said he would do, in rapid fashion.

And not sure about the whole "going to far right" thing, Trump isn't a real "conservative" anyway, but the religious rhetoric is making me raise a brow right now.

[Zambroski]

1 hour ago, spin_dry said:

an olive branch that i never requested? what color is that egotistical world you live in? fuck that was rich.   

It's black.  Like my heart.  Hey, makes no difference to me if you "grab the branch" or not.  Like I said, that's as good as it gets. I'd just as soon toast with the crows anyway.

Good luck!  Now....GO PROTEST!

[Zambroski]

3 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

The press gave him a free ride. Interviews where Trump wouldn't answer questions or had prearranged topics.

They let him spew his bullshit without calling him on the carpet until it was too late.

He already had you fooled.

 

3 hours ago, Snoslinger said:

bingo, and America tuned into it all, so it became all about ratings.

Holy fucking idiocy at the supreme level.  Now the MSM got him elected?  

Wait...are they still helping him out?  

 

 

 

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, Zambroski said:

 

Holy fucking idiocy at the supreme level.  Now the MSM got him elected?  

Wait...are they still helping him out?  

 

 

 

Hold on there. I didn't say that they got him elected. It was a team effort. 

But they gave him free publicity without taking him to task on his many lies. 

I think the phrase was false equivalency. 

BTW. I liked the first few lines of your earlier tirade. 

Obviously I didn't get past your little fantasy about killing a lot of liberals.

Funny shit that. Does that little fantasy have you marching around like a video game killing people with L's on their shirts? Regardless it was funny. FYI. There isn't a reset or save option in real life. 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Hold on there. I didn't say that they got him elected. It was a team effort. 

But they gave him free publicity without taking him to task on his many lies. 

I think the phrase was false equivalency. 

BTW. I liked the first few lines of your earlier tirade. 

Obviously I didn't get past your little fantasy about killing a lot of liberals.

Funny shit that. Does that little fantasy have you marching around like a video game killing people with L's on their shirts? Regardless it was funny. FYI. There isn't a reset or save option in real life. 

The MSM did all they could to help their lying queen.  They did all they could to destroy the credibility of Trump's campaign.  However, I do agree that was indeed what helped him...just not at all for the reasons you boys think.  Not even close.

What first few lines did you like?

I don't do any "marching around" at all...but foundations die hard.  And mental fervent dies even harder.  You are preaching to the wrong person on this.  But...rattle on....it all very entertaining to me.  And of course, justifies my zeal toward a possible outcome.

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Hold on there. I didn't say that they got him elected. It was a team effort. 

But they gave him free publicity without taking him to task on his many lies. 

I think the phrase was false equivalency. 

BTW. I liked the first few lines of your earlier tirade. 

Obviously I didn't get past your little fantasy about killing a lot of liberals.

Funny shit that. Does that little fantasy have you marching around like a video game killing people with L's on their shirts? Regardless it was funny. FYI. There isn't a reset or save option in real life. 

They helped but they took him to task on almost EVERYTHING.   You don't remember the whole "grab her by the pussy" debacle?

Hillary hadn't even announce she was running and a CNN dude actually said "we can't possibly help her more than we already are."  

A lot of American's anger with the media helped get him elected.  

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

The MSM did all they could to help their lying queen.  They did all they could to destroy the credibility of Trump's campaign.  However, I do agree that was indeed what helped him...just not at all for the reasons you boys think.  Not even close.

What first few lines did you like?

I don't do any "marching around" at all...but foundations die hard.  And mental fervent dies even harder.  You are preaching to the wrong person on this.  But...rattle on....it all very entertaining to me.  And of course, justifies my zeal toward a possible outcome.

Your zeal toward a possible outcome?????? Fucking Hilarious. Thank you that was awesome. Do you trash talk like that to the 14 year olds you play call of duty with?

[Highmark]

  

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump

By HADAS GOLD

 

10/25/16 03:00 PM EDT

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump, such as his treatment of women, than controversies surrounding Clinton, such as her email practices or the Clinton Foundation.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

Though neither candidate was necessarily celebrated, Clinton largely just stayed out of the line of fire.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

The 2005 tape of Trump making lewd comments about women and other allegations of his mistreatment of women was by far the most covered topic, garnering 102 minutes of coverage. Questions about Clinton's age and health and her personal email server were the next most covered topics, garnering 93 minutes combined.

“It doesn’t really surprise me, I think most people got the sense that this was a hostile place for Trump, the establishment media," said Rich Noyes, director of research for the MRC. "I would say looking at the big picture, the Trump campaign and to a lesser extent Republicans in general wanted this to be a referendum on Obama … the Clinton campaign, the Democrats, once Trump was picked wanted this be a referendum on Donald Trump. Television news has for the past 12 weeks has been giving the Democrats the campaign they wanted.”

In a somewhat related study, television columnist and tracker Andrew Tyndall noted on Monday that issues coverage on the nightly news thus far this year "has been virtually non-existent."

"Of the 32 minutes total, terrorism (17 mins) and foreign policy (7 mins) towards the Middle East (Israel-ISIS-Syria-Iraq) have attracted some attention. Gay rights, immigration and policing have been mentioned in passing," Tyndall notes. "No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative."

[Zambroski]

15 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Your zeal toward a possible outcome?????? Fucking Hilarious. Thank you that was awesome. Do you trash talk like that to the 14 year olds you play call of duty with?

Well, you are very welcome!  And 14 year olds?  You play with 14 year olds?  Are they boys/  I'm starting to see why you likem them muslims!  A little boy diddling on the side eh?  

14 minutes ago, Highmark said:

  

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump

By HADAS GOLD

 

10/25/16 03:00 PM EDT

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump, such as his treatment of women, than controversies surrounding Clinton, such as her email practices or the Clinton Foundation.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

Though neither candidate was necessarily celebrated, Clinton largely just stayed out of the line of fire.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

The 2005 tape of Trump making lewd comments about women and other allegations of his mistreatment of women was by far the most covered topic, garnering 102 minutes of coverage. Questions about Clinton's age and health and her personal email server were the next most covered topics, garnering 93 minutes combined.

“It doesn’t really surprise me, I think most people got the sense that this was a hostile place for Trump, the establishment media," said Rich Noyes, director of research for the MRC. "I would say looking at the big picture, the Trump campaign and to a lesser extent Republicans in general wanted this to be a referendum on Obama … the Clinton campaign, the Democrats, once Trump was picked wanted this be a referendum on Donald Trump. Television news has for the past 12 weeks has been giving the Democrats the campaign they wanted.”

In a somewhat related study, television columnist and tracker Andrew Tyndall noted on Monday that issues coverage on the nightly news thus far this year "has been virtually non-existent."

"Of the 32 minutes total, terrorism (17 mins) and foreign policy (7 mins) towards the Middle East (Israel-ISIS-Syria-Iraq) have attracted some attention. Gay rights, immigration and policing have been mentioned in passing," Tyndall notes. "No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative."

Libs here owned again.

[DriftBusta]

 

1 hour ago, Zambroski said:

The MSM did all they could to help their lying queen.  They did all they could to destroy the credibility of Trump's campaign.  However, I do agree that was indeed what helped him...just not at all for the reasons you boys think.  Not even close.

What first few lines did you like?

I don't do any "marching around" at all...but foundations die hard.  And mental fervent dies even harder.  You are preaching to the wrong person on this.  But...rattle on....it all very entertaining to me.  And of course, justifies my zeal toward a possible outcome.

  You probably need to watch more Al Jazeera    

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

  

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump

By HADAS GOLD

 

10/25/16 03:00 PM EDT

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump, such as his treatment of women, than controversies surrounding Clinton, such as her email practices or the Clinton Foundation.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

Though neither candidate was necessarily celebrated, Clinton largely just stayed out of the line of fire.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

The 2005 tape of Trump making lewd comments about women and other allegations of his mistreatment of women was by far the most covered topic, garnering 102 minutes of coverage. Questions about Clinton's age and health and her personal email server were the next most covered topics, garnering 93 minutes combined.

“It doesn’t really surprise me, I think most people got the sense that this was a hostile place for Trump, the establishment media," said Rich Noyes, director of research for the MRC. "I would say looking at the big picture, the Trump campaign and to a lesser extent Republicans in general wanted this to be a referendum on Obama … the Clinton campaign, the Democrats, once Trump was picked wanted this be a referendum on Donald Trump. Television news has for the past 12 weeks has been giving the Democrats the campaign they wanted.”

In a somewhat related study, television columnist and tracker Andrew Tyndall noted on Monday that issues coverage on the nightly news thus far this year "has been virtually non-existent."

"Of the 32 minutes total, terrorism (17 mins) and foreign policy (7 mins) towards the Middle East (Israel-ISIS-Syria-Iraq) have attracted some attention. Gay rights, immigration and policing have been mentioned in passing," Tyndall notes. "No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative."

Americans get it.