It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump Nibbles on a Weiner, Hillary Should Not

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:07 AM
I've written several threads critical of Donald Trump during this election season, and in support of Hillary Clinton. I've become emotionally invested in this presidential campaign. I want Hillary Clinton to win. As a result I was in a state of high dudgeon last night, as Hillary Clinton must have been, at the late revelation by FBI Director James Comey that the FBI is examining yet more Clinton emails that have been discovered on private email accounts associated with Mrs. Clinton's aid, Huma Abedin and her socially, sexually, salacious, sexting husband, Anthony "Hot Dog" Weiner.

Grasping at straws, I started composing posts in my head along the lines of Keystone Kops Hand PR Coup To Alleged Polanski Like Rapist of 13 Year Old Modeling Wannabe, Donald Trump. I started to descend into Donald Trump's Captain Queeg like insertions of conspiracy as an explanation of bad fortune. I started to think that nobody in the FBI could be so unaware of context, the context being the election campaign, as to hand one candidate a stick with which to beat the other one, accidentally.

I reasoned that the fix had to be in. I thought, This is the "October surprise" that anti Trump forces have been predicting would materialize out of thin air to trip up Mrs. Clinton and irrationally throw public support to the irrationalist, Donald Trump.

People had been thinking that it would come in the form of a terrorist attack of some kind, since Trump has focused so much of his message on the threat faced by America, of hostile attack. Echoes of 9/11. Visions of Mexican rapists climbing through the window. Muslim mow downs in Gayville. It could come from any direction.

But no, and this is what lightened my mood and lifted the terrible weight of "high dudgeon" and betrayal off my back.

Warning: Academic reference ahead.

This morning when I got up i was still buzzing with all of this, when, I realized that there was a comic aspect to the story. I remembered that one of the motifs of medieval literature and renaissance literature is the way in which it is often shown that the world of the great, statesmen and royalty, is mirrored by the doings of ordinary yokels, on a low level and in ridiculous ways.

It is a dramatic device that you find in Shakespeare's plays. It uses comedy to relieve the tension of the main story line and can provide a line of commentary, as well, on the higher matters examined by the main action of the play.

Numerous low life characters scurry across the stages of Shakespearean plays going about their dramatist author's stage business, to the amusement of the audience, who are, as we are in this case, and as Mrs. Clinton should be, much more interested in the main action of the play.

Donald Trump has chosen to become absorbed in the activities of this play's lower than "life as we know it" characters. Mrs. Clinton should not be diverted by this sub plot in the presidential play.

Let Donald and the groundlings have their laughs.

Donald Trump should be mindful that on allegations that he raped a 13 year old girl, he has been given a very soft ride by the media. He has sought, in his usual exaggerated manner to portray the media as biased against him, rather than as simply reporting his follies as they occur.

If the media were biased against him, they would make sure that mention of the rape allegations were never out of print.

Spinning Hillary Clinton's email problems up to the level of "Watergate" is really asking for an unbiased, balanced media response, but I guess that "The Donald", as usual, hasn't thought that far ahead.
edit on 29-10-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:16 AM

he has been given a very soft ride by the media
edit on 29-10-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)

(post by chadderson removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:43 AM
a reply to: ssenerawa

This is Donald Trump's point, but the fact that 91% percent of the coverage of Trump is negative does not indicate media bias, necessarily. In fact, Trump's campaign has been shambolic. Trump wants his faults and missteps sugar coated or overlooked entirely. He wants to be able to count up the pluses and minuses on any given media day to verify a balanced media ledger.

Donald Trump, as a businessman, knows that in a bankruptcy the ledger doesn't balance, but he refuses to recognize that in a political campaign similar phenomena occur. One candidate can have more losses than another. Trump the marketer and promoter thinks that the media is a malleable entity that can be massaged for the desired effect. He thinks of the media as advertising. He doesn't know what hard news is.

If Donald Trump is elected, he said that he is going to address the libel laws in the United States to make it harder to print the truth about celebrities.

Trump is the banal, vulgar face of Orwell's distopia.

Trump wants the media to keep issues confused enough, by artificially leveling coverage of him, so that the public can't ever get enough information to form an opinion of him based on anything except his own hyperbolic exaggerations. He has said "fact checkers are scum".

He can't face the truth himself and doesn't want the public to see it.

If Hillary Clinton were starting a new charity every week during the campaign and there were issues with each one, I would say Trump has a point.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:47 AM
a reply to: chadderson

You're an ideal Trump supporter. Keep not reading. The Donald will "love" you. If all of America keeps not reading it will be "great again". Not.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:49 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Lol this should be moved to general conspiracies
edit on 29-10-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:56 AM
a reply to: ssenerawa

If the universe turned upside down, it would all still look the same.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:00 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

What an apt avatar for a Hillary supporter .

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: hutch622

Did you eat your husband?

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:45 AM

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: ssenerawa

This is Donald Trump's point, but the fact that 91% percent of the coverage of Trump is negative does not indicate media bias, necessarily.

These do:

Trump Tapes vs. WikiLeaks Reveals All

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:20 AM
So basically, you spent a lot of time and thought, finding some way to rationalize your support for a treasonous criminal.
Got it.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:26 AM
I don't think it does. The FBI has studied the leaked emails in detail and said that Mrs. Clinton was careless with classified data. They have not released a detailed study of the classified emails for obvious reasons. If they analyzed an email a day for 30,000 days we would have daily coverage, in detail, of Clinton's email story. Most of that coverage would very likely be to the effect that the emails in question were innocuous.

Perhaps Donald Trump's campaign could have a daily press release saying that,

"As we told you yesterday, the FBI has examined Mrs. Clinton's shockingly careless use of a private email server and found that no reasonable prosecutor would initiate a prosecution in this case, since the incidents indicate carelessness, not malice or attempted espionage."

In that way the Trump campaign could insure that there was daily coverage of Mrs. Clinton's carelessness with emails. They could issue this statement several times a day if they wanted to maximize negative coverage of Mrs. Clinton.

Which begs the question, "Why haven't they done so?" Obviously, it would be absurd to do so, since there is nothing new to add to the story.

All that changed with the Weiner/Abedin emails, and low and behold, the press is reporting that story and Mr. Trump has gone so far as to say that "maybe the system is not rigged", or words to that effect. If he wins the election, he will probably reverse himself and say that the election was not rigged. He says a lot of stuff, depending on the situation of the moment.

Trump says or does something new and loony almost every day. That's why there is more negative coverage of him. As Trump supporters so often say, "Hillary is boring." That's why she doesn't get the same coverage as the flamboyant Mr. Trump.

Trump would love to get more positive press coverage than Mrs. Clinton and would not complain if she got nothing but negative coverage, but Donald Trump is "not going to change" and can't see the relationship between every boneheaded thing he says and negative coverage. Hence his negative coverage is going to continue.
edit on 29-10-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 07:27 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Ummm...back to "Muddy York" with you...

You don't even get a vote...

ERM...that's right...your all in it for the win for the drunken a vote after all...I mean...if dead people have that right...then why not extraMuricans...

Or would that be...biting off more than your nibble...?

edit on 29-10-2016 by YouSir because: I likes it...

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 08:18 AM
You don't have to worry about Hillary nibbling on a Weiner. . She will go down, but not on a Weiner. In the end she will go down, and it will be on Huma. If Huma and Anthony aren't "suicided" by Clinton goons first. (Allah Seth Rich). CHEERS!

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

the fact that 91% percent of the coverage of Trump is negative does not indicate media bias

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:32 AM
This thread of desperation is the actual comedy, the denial is epic in proportions to the reality that Hillary is now a candidate under Criminal Investigation. Not a single person in this country would ever get hired while under Criminal Investigation.

It is over and the comedy ensues.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:52 AM
I'll try to make it simple for Trump supporters. Sometimes when a movie gets a lot of bad reviews or is universally panned, it's because the movie is bad.

Media bias would be trying to sprinkle in a few good reviews out of sympathy, because the star had ego problems and couldn't accept criticism or acknowledge that he gave a bad performance.
edit on 29-10-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

This Election has gone Way Beyond Media Bias , they All have become Irrelevant now . Time to Count the Votes , the Spin Doctors will be Sitting on the Sidelines Until Nov. 9th .
edit on 29-10-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:19 AM
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I agree with everything you said except the bit about the spin doctors. They are never going to shut up without the marines and a lot of duct tape.

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 03:50 PM
well, if Hillary and her supporters truly believe that she has done nothing wrong than they have nothing to worry about.
if Hillary and her supporters are worried or stressed then that proves that they aren`t all that sure that she didn`t do something wrong.
if you aren`t %100 sure that your candidate hasn`t done something illegal then maybe you shouldn`t be voting for them.
edit on 29-10-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in