Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Trump Getting Hammered by Mainstream Media

OldBrownsFan

By OldBrownsFan
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

no, by your stupidass response to his post, I figured you missed it, because

you are the dumbass woodypeckerhead of the board.

 

Chris rationalized it, but it doesn't go away. If he had wanted to find it,

he could have found it easily on Fox.

 

stupidass woodpecker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is the guy who is making the media rounds saying Trump is unfit for office and shilling for Clinton while trying to pretend he is not biased..........

 

Former CIA Director Mike Morrell Is A Lying Liar (VIDEO)

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/07/former-cia-director-mike-morrell-lying-liar-video/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I deleted my ABC news feed this morning. I just could not take the anti Trump bias any longer. Day after day the headlines only are negative for Trump. Below is typical of what I see almost daily. I don't see any headlines about Clinton "short circuiting", or the nuclear scientist who was executed in Iran and may have been outed by Clinton's criminal private email server. Both Clinton and Trump gave speeches yesterday but only what Clinton said in her speech negatively about Trump gets a headlne story. Trump did have some things to say about Clinton in his speech.This is what Trump is up against just an all out assault by a corrupt liberal media:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StinkHole Newbie

StinkHole

Posted
Posted

 

I deleted my ABC news feed this morning. I just could not take the anti Trump bias any longer. Day after day the headlines only are negative for Trump. Below is typical of what I see almost daily. I don't see any headlines about Clinton "short circuiting", or the nuclear scientist who was executed in Iran and may have been outed by Clinton's criminal private email server. Both Clinton and Trump gave speeches yesterday but only what Clinton said in her speech negatively about Trump gets a headlne story. Trump did have some things to say about Clinton in his speech.This is what Trump is up against just an all out assault by a corrupt liberal media:

 

 

 

Stuart

 

The mainstream media is nothing more than an arm of the democRAT party.

 

More than 90% of these college indoctrinated journalists vote democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StinkHole Newbie

StinkHole

Posted
Posted

Yes a female trump executive will tell us the whole truth and nothing but, right?

 

 

 

Stuart

 

And leftist dickwads tell the truth you dickwad?

 

Isn't it funny how at no time in Trumps career has he ever been accused of being a racist or misogynist... until he decided to run against democRATS.

 

Someone please quote before the dickwad whines about his hearing. Thanx

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Trump gets criticized for days when he eats a taco bowl

 

Well.... when it's the sum total of your hispanic outreach.... yeah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

The mainstream media will never report this:

 

Turns out Khizr Khan is very pro-Sharia Law!

 

Walid Shoebat wrote a blockbuster post over the weekend about Khizr Khan, the man who called out Trump from the DNC stage and sent the media into a whirlwind.

His basic premise is that while Khan heralded the sacrifice his son made before the nation at the DNC, a sacrifice made for this country, it’s important to know that Khan is also very pro-Sharia Law and he has written on it both authoritatively and extensively as a lawyer.

 

http://therightscoop.com/turns-out-khizr-khan-is-very-pro-sharia-law/

 

True or not... Khan's son and every other U.S. soldier that has died in every war sacrificed for his right to believe in and even promote Sharia law.

 

No soldier gets to pick the rights he fights for... it's a package deal.

 

he said the kid renting a room in his house told him that Bush was going to cancel social security

as soon as he got a pen and was in the WH.

 

And here I thought W campaigned on privatizing SS... which would have ended SS as we know it.

 

 

Doesn't matter how true this stuff is - which it's at least partially true, the media will ignore it or report it as Trump allies attacking grieving muslim father with conspiracy theories.

 

So "truth" is officially a non-factor in your world, bb? Good to know...

 

I'll care about Benghazi after you piss on Reagan's grave for being personally responsible for the 300+ Marine dead in Beirut - and not one second before. Until then, your double standard shows you to be a partisan hack. Un

************************************************************

1. The terrorist attack on the Marine compound was a terrorist attack. Afterwards, Reagan and co. went all

out to respond and try to help. No previous specific warnings. The explosion lasted about 1 minute?

 

2. Benghazi was a terrorist attack with many, many specific warnings by the Ambassador himself - and higgardly

refused to send any security to protect them, then after it happened, she refused to allow anyone to go

save their lives. The terrorist attack on Benghazi lasted hours.

 

1. Factually wrong? reagan aides say cia bulletin warned of likely beirut attack

2. Mythically correct? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

 

True or not... Khan's son and every other U.S. soldier that has died in every war sacrificed for his right to believe in and even promote Sharia law.

 

No soldier gets to pick the rights he fights for... it's a package deal.

 

 

And here I thought W campaigned on privatizing SS... which would have ended SS as we know it.

 

 

So "truth" is officially a non-factor in your world, bb? Good to know...

 

 

1. Factually wrong? reagan aides say cia bulletin warned of likely beirut attack

2. Mythically correct? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/

Truth matters, but the media won't report on the truth.

 

Which is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Republicans have been using emotions for decades... to get votes. Zero "welfare bucks driving cadillacs" ever existed. Not one.

 

1) The Beirut bombing was the SECOND attack - not the first. The embassy bombing months earlier was the "unpredictable" one.. the Marine compound bombing was entirely predictable, and cost the lives of over 100 times more Americans than the loss at Benghazi.

 

2) Your emotions have convinced you that "someone" must "somewhere" have been within range. Deal with it - there weren't.

 

As well, the reason that the compounds were low in personnel is entirely Republican. They controlled the money, and refused to staff up even after learning of the specific warnings from the Ambassador himself. REPUBLICANS let him die. Deal with it.

 

You did a better job than I did...

 

What I get for responding one page at a time.

 

 

No argument there but the MSM bias is real:

 

Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect

Studies consistently show that reporters and editors stand to the left of the American center. More than 30 former journalists now serve in the Obama administration — nothing comparable happens in G.O.P. administrations.

 

Clustering of left-of-center viewpoints in the newsroom leads to a cloistering, and thus reporters end up unfamiliar with conservative viewpoints. This shows up in the tone of daily coverage.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect

 

There's something ironic in providing a NYT link here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

She's lied many times - I don't think that's a secret.

---

E-mails are the tip of the iceberg of the entire Clinton Foundation - which is a huge scandal. It'll be one of the biggest we've ever seen in the US

 

The difference I see between our major candidates is that one cannot tell the difference between truth and lie.

 

As for the Clinton Foundation.... going to have to wait a while for history to weigh in on that puppy...

 

Then she was incredibly incompetent for a sec of state ...........at the minimum she was guilty of gross negligence in handling classified material and she should have been referred for criminal prosecution by the FBI...

 

And had the FBI not actually investigated her handling of classified material, then they might agree with you.

 

I don't see the point in deflecting to a previous administration that isn't involved in any way in the 2016 election.

 

Well some previous Bush advisors and donors are joining Clinton - so maybe they're involved a little bit in the 2016 election.

 

Contrasting partisan reactions, past and present, is germane whether you want it to be or not.

 

Because no conservative has ever been known to do exactly that

 

Real point is that OBF did not mount a personal... it's not his style.

 

In this instance unsympathetic made it personal... and he should not have. Wherever civil discussions are possible, they should be embraced, not shit-canned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

And I think we would be wise to work together with the Russians to fight common enemies like Isis.

 

You do realize that there is no evidence that Russia has fought ISIS... don't you???

 

We know what we will have with a Clinton presidency. She has promised to be Obama's third term. I guess if you think the country is doing so well it would make perfect sense to go with Clinton. The polling shows most people feel the country is going in the wrong direction.

 

Trump was down the list for me as well but I believe he will be better with his supreme court appointments, better on the second amendment, make better trade deals, will do better with helping veterans, and secure our southern border. I think if he surrounds himself with good advisers he could be a very good president.

 

I have also been critical of Trump many times on the Browns Forum but the bottom line for me Is I would prefer to take a chance with Trump than continue with the Obama administration polices. Our economy has been pitiful for 8 years and we have had anemic growth and the worst recovery coming out of a recession since the Great Depression. I am all in for Trump now the race is between him and Clinton.

 

If you back Trump, then you want an activist court... the thing conservatives claim to hate the most... at least on some days...

 

And please stop calling the crash of 2008 "a recession" as if it compares to any other economic dip that occurred in your lifetime. The only "Obama policies" enacted to address the bursting of housing bubble in late '08 was a one-shot stimulus package that had to be watered down to get through Congress while it was still under control of the Dems. Since the House was taken by the Reps in '10, it's been a fight to maintain spending levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Why doesn't this statistic surprise me coming out of this administration?

 

7,551 Syrian Refugees Admitted to U.S. in FY16--Only 35 Christians

 

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration admitted 2,340 Syrian refugees into the United States in July, almost as many as the record number of admissions in June (2,406), keeping it on track to reach its goal of 10,000 by the end of September.

Continuing a trend seen throughout the fiscal year, just 15 of the 2,340 resettled in July (0.6 percent) are Christians, while 2,308 (98.6 percent) are Sunni Muslims.

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-refugees-admitted-so-far-fy-2016-7432-sunnis-35-christians

 

What percentage of applicants were "Christian"?

 

dutL6b.jpg

 

Really, bb? Are you that far gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

Really, bb? Are you that far gone?

 

The media spent a full day about Trump eating fried chicken.

 

Something's going on here and it's not good.

 

--

 

Just like how they freak the fuck out about David Duke endorsing Trump - even after he disavowed him like 2 days prior. And in 2000.

 

Then here comes Taliban-supporting Mateen front and center at a Clinton rally and nobody talks about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OldBrownsFan, on 02 Aug 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:snapback.png

Then she was incredibly incompetent for a sec of state ...........at the minimum she was guilty of gross negligence in handling classified material and she should have been referred for criminal prosecution by the FBI...

 

And had the FBI not actually investigated her handling of classified material, then they might agree with you.

 

*******************************

 

Actually the FBI director laid out the case for her guilt then decided not to refer her for prosecution because he said there was no intent proved. As Trey Gowdy pointed out to the FBI director in most cases criminals don't declare their intent but the intent is proved by their actions. Clinton's actions in lying about her activity showed she knew what she was doing was wrong. Furthermore she was guilty of negligent handling of classified material which the FBI director referred to as being very careless in handling of classified material which is the same thing. Most recently we find the nuclear scientist hung for being a spy in Iran had been mentioned in her unsecured emails and we have no idea how much damage has been done to our national security.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Well that 9/11 thing happened

 

Weren't the hijackers "legal" immigrants? At worst some overstayed their visas?

 

I deleted my ABC news feed this morning. I just could not take the anti Trump bias any longer. Day after day the headlines only are negative for Trump. Below is typical of what I see almost daily. I don't see any headlines about Clinton "short circuiting", or the nuclear scientist who was executed in Iran and may have been outed by Clinton's criminal private email server. Both Clinton and Trump gave speeches yesterday but only what Clinton said in her speech negatively about Trump gets a headlne story. Trump did have some things to say about Clinton in his speech.This is what Trump is up against just an all out assault by a corrupt liberal media:

 

At the heart of News is "new". Every item above is new news. Every HRC item bb wants rehashed is old news, but should there be new developments it'll appear again. There's a reason news is referred to in terms of cycles.

 

Trump both creates new news and keeps old alive, in no small part because he lacks discipline... lacks self-control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Weren't the hijackers "legal" immigrants? At worst some overstayed their visas?

 

 

At the heart of News is "new". Every item above is new news. Every HRC item bb wants rehashed is old news, but should there be new developments it'll appear again. There's a reason news is referred to in terms of cycles.

 

Trump both creates new news and keeps old alive, in no small part because he lacks discipline... lacks self-control.

One example there is that after a number of headlines negative against Trump they add the negative comments from Clinton in her speech while not mentioning anything Trump had said about Clinton in his speech. Trump had some things to say about Clinton as well in his speech but that failed to get any headline reporting.

 

The liberal bias of the MSM is real and I know you thought it was ironic I used an article by the liberal biased NY Times as a source earlier but that only proves there are some on the left who are intellectually honest and admit the obvious bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

The media spent a full day about Trump eating fried chicken.

 

Something's going on here and it's not good.

--

 

Just like how they freak the fuck out about David Duke endorsing Trump - even after he disavowed him like 2 days prior. And in 2000.

 

Then here comes Taliban-supporting Mateen front and center at a Clinton rally and nobody talks about it.

 

It's the notion of a screen shot having any meaning whatsoever, bb... you are still smart enough to have gotten that point.

 

As for the Taliban... at least they were on the right side once in their history. The Klan? Not so much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

One example there is that after a number of headlines negative against Trump they add the negative comments from Clinton in her speech while not mentioning anything Trump had said about Clinton in his speech. Trump had some things to say about Clinton as well in his speech but that failed to get any headline reporting.

 

The liberal bias of the MSM is real and I know you thought it was ironic I used an article by the liberal biased NY Times as a source earlier but that only proves there are some on the left who are intellectually honest and admit the obvious bias.

 

Everything Trump said in his acceptance speech was negative... and it was covered. Problem was it did not stand out at the end of 4-days of incessant negativity.

 

By contrast...

 

Nevertheless very little of HRC's attacks lasted more than a news cycle, because Trump was too busy getting into a new hole with his gold star attacks among other foot in mouth efforts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

 

It's the notion of a screen shot having any meaning whatsoever, bb... you are still smart enough to have gotten that point.

 

As for the Taliban... at least they were on the right side once in their history. The Klan? Not so much...

Well, will Hillary disavow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One of Hillary's emails literally said (in response to issues sending secure fax) "If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure"

 

Sounds like intent to me

 

Clinton was beyond a doubt guilty of negligent handling of classified material which intent is not even an element of that crime. When Comey said she was extremely careless handling classified material that is no different than negligent handling of classified material and then when Comey said no intent was proven he failed to mention intent is not an element of the crime of negligent handling of classified information.

 

Unbelievably the FBI neither interviews Clinton under oath nor was the interview taped or transcribed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

One of Hillary's emails literally said (in response to issues sending secure fax) "If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure"

 

Sounds like intent to me

 

If the extent of declassifying was simply to remove the Header and Footer, AND this was a general guideline for all communications, then yes... I'd agree.

 

But it does not seem that was the case...

 

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

Once again, as is often the case with a clever screen shot... or an edited video clip, context matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...