Trump Shouldn't Eschew Results to Appease the Outrage of a Few Prigs

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion

Can the bollocks about MSM hating Trump finally stop yet seeing as it's all lies?

Coverage has hovered around 90% negative for the past couple years. I guess that means they love Trump.

Sigh.

That was a study conducted by the right-wing Media Research Centre who's sole aim is to 'expose and neutralise the left-wing propaganda arm of thenews media'. They have a strong right wing conservative bias (in the extreme catagory of bias). mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They don't even believe in evolution and are widely mocked through a funhouse mirror that renders everything--even the facts themselves--as manifestations of insidious bias." www.sourcewatch.org...



It was a flawed study on ABC CBS and NBC, very small orgs in comparisson to the 90% positive from Murdoch press. Most came from White House correspondents who write everything the president does no matter how mundane, as they always have.

The Murdoch empire is the biggest most influential in the world and has 60% positive Trump coverage, with 8% negative - Fox and Friend journalists are told not to cover negative stories about Trump.

Fact is Trump used to work for Murdoch, still does. their friendship is close Murdoch's daughter's were flower girls at his wedding, they speak daily/weekly and he's Trump's biggest advisor outside the US.

The whole 'MSM hates Trump' is a load of nonsense, he has the closest relationship in modern history to the world's biggest most influential media organization.


As the ex Fox News head put it he's Murdoch's puppet: “Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and #s down. I just worry about who’s jerking whose chain.”

a reply to: MteWamp

Please explain to us all what a person from the left has done to hurt you so badly that you two would do something this vindictive.

Has anyone from the left EVER actually caused you real harm in your life because of their politics. You personally I mean.

The propaganda from the two parties is so very strong. Look what it turns you into.

These are your fellow americans. When did you forget that?

a reply to: Lumenari

Nope. Have nothing against Republicans. But I do have something against the over obsession of a political leader, its dangerous.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

Nope. Have nothing against Republicans. But I do have something against the over obsession of a political leader, its dangerous.

Where was that fake concern under the last American idol?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Care to explain to me how collusion is supposed to help Putin, if the American economy and military are getting stronger?

The American military and economy are already way, way stronger. So if you start adding small percentages to that, it's a small price to pay for more favorable foreign policy from Trump. Law of diminishing returns, when it comes pure military strength (as compared to how that strength is actually used). Russia is not trying to fight a pitched battle against the whole US Armed Forces, they don't want war with America in the first place. But a more isolationist US can enable them to better look out for their own interests in Europe, the Middle East and maybe other places too. Putin is smart and takes a lot of factors into consideration, nut just a couple numbers.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think I said it already, it's possibly to be a traitor without committing the crime of treason as defined by a particular nation's code. Stop hiding behind this pedantry.

a reply to: bastion

Disputing something because of where it comes from and not it’s merit is called a genetic fallacy.

“Sigh”

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak (see Figure 5).

Try this one: research.hks.harvard.edu...

Let’s see how long you can push your nonsense without evidence.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think I said it already, it's possibly to be a traitor without committing the crime of treason as defined by a particular nation's code. Stop hiding behind this pedantry.

Many things are possible, sunshine. Keep believing them.

a reply to: CB328

Nope, only a few petty, insignificant and very little people.

The same people that are angry every single time Trump dares to breath.

We've stopped caring about those """people""" long ago. Very small and petty/bitter losers.

a reply to: Cutepants

Wrong.

Treason is defined in the Constitution. You don't get to redefine it, no matter how many other ""people"" you get to agree with you.

a reply to: CB328

And your avatar reminds me of the child molester symbol. But since Obama did sexually assault his daughters/man-wife, I am not surprised by this.

Disgusting you'd choose to wear it around.

Unfounded? That's not unfounded. It makes just as much sense as your bizarre allegations, in fact. Explains the goofy-ass look on Obama's stolen milk money face.

Wait til we retroactively impeach the disgusting Kenyan anti-American traitor and its monkey man wife Michelle

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JBurns

So you're saying to me, treason did not exist before the Constitution was written? Was Brutus not a traitor to Caesar? And Judas? Did he not betray the Christ? I'm sure you can think of other examples, if you don't believe in those particular stories.

No, according to you treason was invented by the founding fathers, or by lawyers? For God's sake, just stop this.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JBurns

So you're saying to me, treason did not exist before the Constitution was written? Was Brutus not a traitor to Caesar? And Judas? Did he not betray the Christ? I'm sure you can think of other examples, if you don't believe in those particular stories.

No, according to you treason was invented by the founding fathers, or by lawyers? For God's sake, just stop this.

There was news and articles with experts in law discussing the legality of Trump being guilty of treason, comments which many had to walk back.

Trump ‘treason’ in Helsinki? It doesn’t hold up.

If we speaking about treason in Ceaser's time, or treason in Trinidad and Tobago, we'll be sure to let you know.

a reply to: JBurns

Wow monkeyman wife Michelle?.
How is your purge coming on btw?.
You know sometimes people on the right really live up to their bad press.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion

Disputing something because of where it comes from and not it’s merit is called a genetic fallacy.

“Sigh”

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak (see Figure 5).

Try this one: research.hks.harvard.edu...

Let’s see how long you can push your nonsense without evidence.

No disputing a terrible source that is extremely biased and conducts a flawed study isn't genetic fallacy - it's analysis of methodology, going through the stats to expose the bull# in the method.

Source integrity counts, anyone who's been in higher education understands the weighting principle.

Did you read the Harvard study, or piece you quoted? It's based on his first 100 days and says 90% negative at its peak - quite bad on the face of it (depends on the story content) - but in no way supports your claim it's been 90% avg over the last two years.

a reply to: bastion

Then surely you could say how it was flawed.

Did you read the Harvard study, or piece you quoted? It's based on his first 100 days and says 90% negative at its peak - quite bad on the face of it (depends on the story content) - but in no way supports your claim it's been 90% avg over the last two years.

And it completely refutes your non sequitur that because Donald Trump knows Murdoch, the press don't hate him.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Only hard core trump supporters believe his nonsense..

This is the result.

Oddly enough, there appears to have been enough of them to vote him into office.

There will be more of them in 2020.

I highly doubt it... In fact, I predict he'll be a full blown lame duck president from November this year.

No need to wait till 2020 to witness how badly he fails!

Quoted for hilarity!!!

I'm cutting this post and pasting it on a word document I've started called "Quotes to post from ATS libs after the midterm results".

I am also assuming in your world that Hillary is still ahead by 7 points?

Great idea , I'm looking forward to that thread!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bastion

Then surely you could say how it was flawed.

Did you read the Harvard study, or piece you quoted? It's based on his first 100 days and says 90% negative at its peak - quite bad on the face of it (depends on the story content) - but in no way supports your claim it's been 90% avg over the last two years.

And it completely refutes your non sequitur that because Donald Trump knows Murdoch, the press don't hate him.

See original post, cherry picking news orgs, small data size, not representative of avg US media.

Helps if you actually read the Harvard study and Pew study - 44% to 60% of coverage was negative. Only Trump tweeted 90% was negative.

I never claimed the press don't hate him, he's getting twice the negative coverage of previous Presidents. I was responding to your baseless assertion the MSM all sing from the same sheet.

The Murdoch empire being in full support of Trump, their daily calls and advice Murdoch gives to Trump proves this isn't the case. I still stand by my assertion he has closer ties to it than previous Presidents. Unless you think Murdoch press isn't part of the MSM?

a reply to: bastion

Here's your non- sequitur for your viewing pleasure:

The whole 'MSM hates Trump' is a load of nonsense, he has the closest relationship in modern history to the world's biggest most influential media organization.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He said friendly words towards Putin on TV.

Nothing more. No agreements were signed. See, after years of being a real estate mogul dealing with some of the meanest most dangerous characters in the game, Trump knows how to handle tough guys.

A tough guy, or strong man, is primarily concerned with how he is perceived at home.

With MERE WORDS, Trump was set to accomplish more diplomacy than you could buy with a half a billion dollars.

Just like with Kim, he was letting Putin go home feeling and looking like a man. That's the kind of thing that is important to them, Trump correctly realizes this and uses it to his advantage.

But, the Democrats couldn't have that. OH HELL NO, let Trump walk away with another huge diplomatic victory??

Anyone with a brain has been pointing out the sheer corruption oozing from our intelligence agencies. There is a decades long track record full of egregious abuses.

Just like the people paying attention have been railing against politics forever and when something different and refreshing finally comes along, we finally have a chance to try something different, we finally got Exactly What We Have Been Begging For and....

...The Elite grip on the populous is just too strong. They cannot break free from their programming. I never believed it would happen but they are fighting tooth and nail for their chains to be put BACK ON! They long for a return to familiarity and predictability.