It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The time-line where Hillary won

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I could find a new story about Obama every night on right wing media. That was literally the first controversy I Googled. What you are doing is saying, "I don't have access to Fox News and therefore haven't watched it, but I can reliably tell you what Fox News' broadcasts were like during the Obama years." Yeah right. I DO have access to Fox News and I'm telling you that you are wrong and uninformed. And this is saying nothing about the even CRAZIER stuff that came from more fringe outlets like Breitbart.

You only care about the negative press Trump gets because you like him. If you cared about the negative press Obama received during his terms then you'd be more aware of it for this thread.
edit on 12-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You only care about the negative press Trump gets because you like him.

No I care because it's extremely biased and misleading. I know for a fact if the situation were reversed and Hillary was taking a constant blasting from virtually all major MSM sources, you'd see a problem with it. I mean the MSM can barely handle a little bit of criticism from Trump, when he fires back it's seen as an attack on free speech and they have a big cry about it, saying they shouldn't have to deal with it. Just imagine for a moment if all the major social networks were suppressing the voices of leftists instead of right leaning people, I can tell you for a fact the level of outrage would be through the roof and we wouldn't hear the end of it until some serious action and penalties were enforced. So don't sit there and try to tell me I'm just not looking at the whole picture and there isn't any unfair reporting happening, that is an absolute load of crap, I was around during the Obama years and I know what the MSM reporting was like.
edit on 12/9/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You only care about the negative press Trump gets because you like him.

No I care because it's extremely biased and misleading.

No you don't. Because you didn't care when Obama was President. Let me tell you something. I started out not trusting Obama. I didn't vote for him in either election, but it was the near CONSTANT inability for the right wing media to recognize anything Obama did right (like pulling our country out of a recession for one) and bitching about the dumbest things that made me an Obama supporter.


I know for a fact if the situation were reversed and Hillary was taking a constant blasting from virtually all major MSM sources, you'd see a problem with it.

You know nothing about me and don't pretend like you do just because of my political identification, but if the complaining was justified then I'd agree with it.


I mean the MSM can barely handle a little bit of criticism from Trump, when he fires back it's seen as an attack on free speech and they have a big cry about it, saying they shouldn't have to deal with it.

That's because Trump is the President who represents the government. So Trump speaking against the press for speaking against him can easily be taken as the government trying to silence the press through intimidation.

But speaking of thin skin. Trump literally calls EVERYONE who talks ill about him a traitor. Why don't you call out his thin skin?


Just imagine for a moment if all the major social networks were suppressing the voices of leftists instead of right leaning people, I can tell you for a fact the level of outrage would be through the roof and we wouldn't hear the end of it until some serious action and penalties were enforced.

I literally don't have to because this narrative isn't true. Right leaning outlets aren't being targeted if they can remain civil and don't spread bs. If you agree with spreading bs then I can see if you'd have a problem with these actions.


So don't sit there and try to tell me I'm just not looking at the whole picture and there isn't any unfair reporting happening, this is an absolute load of crap, I was around during the Obama years and I know what the MSM reporting was like.

You aren't looking at the whole picture. There is DEFINITELY unfair reporting happening though. It's just that you are pretending it is only isolated to the left and isn't occurring on both sides. Something that is laughably untrue. Hence my statement of you not looking at the full picture.
edit on 12-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

he lives in his own reality. Even though this very site can be searched, and reviewed for it's previous 8 years, and the level of hate was nothing even close during Obama's reign, he will manufacture the outrage that it was identical, perhaps even meaner back then, although there is no evidence to support such a fantasy.



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Why does the vitriol have to be the same to say that it existed? There are less conservatives than liberals in the country. The pure numbers say the hate can't be even, but that doesn't mean the coverage against Obama wasn't lopsided against him from the right wing media. Furthermore, I already know you don't care about the negative press Obama received as well.
edit on 12-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Says one single guy from europe. One thing that I have noticed is that big media always down plays trump support and upplays trump hate. I mean it’s just blantently obvious how these news outlets are so slanted and often outright fabricated.

I mean so far no new big wars, stocks are up, country seems safe, unemployment down.... NK starting to come around

I mean....jeeeez what a failure it’s like he is just flailing around barley stopping himself from incontinence..../s

a reply to: ManFromEurope
edit on 12-9-2018 by Athetos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yep. Just substitute "right wing media" for "entire MSM" (of which you really meant "left wing media"). And how do I know this? Because we saw it under Obama.

Even Fox didn't have the level of vitriol we see directed towards Trump with Obama, and right wing media clearly doesn't represent the majority of MSM outlets. I don't think we have a single right wing MSM news source in Australia, pretty much every bit of news we see about Trump is negative and packed full of misleading information just like leftist MSM sources in the U.S.

Lol. Yes they did. Don't be silly. For example, here is Fox News and Glenn Beck bitching about Michelle Obama's sleeveless dress.


FOX one main stream media 1000. you're going to need to level the playing field. Come up with at least 50 more salacious attacks on Obama .



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yep. Just substitute "right wing media" for "entire MSM" (of which you really meant "left wing media"). And how do I know this? Because we saw it under Obama.

Even Fox didn't have the level of vitriol we see directed towards Trump with Obama, and right wing media clearly doesn't represent the majority of MSM outlets. I don't think we have a single right wing MSM news source in Australia, pretty much every bit of news we see about Trump is negative and packed full of misleading information just like leftist MSM sources in the U.S.

Lol. Yes they did. Don't be silly. For example, here is Fox News and Glenn Beck bitching about Michelle Obama's sleeveless dress.


FOX one main stream media 1000. you're going to need to level the playing field. Come up with at least 50 more salacious attacks on Obama .

I like when conservatives pretend like Fox News is the only right wing media outlet. It's hilariously naive. But hey, I get it. You conservatives want to pretend like your media was 100% fair and impartial to Obama so you can bitch about how the left leaning media isn't towards Trump.
edit on 12-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No you don't. Because you didn't care when Obama was President. Let me tell you something. I started out not trusting Obama. I didn't vote for him in either election, but it was the near CONSTANT inability for the right wing media to recognize anything Obama did right (like pulling our country out of a recession for one) and bitching about the dumbest things that made me an Obama supporter.

Yes I agree they were biased against Obama to some extent, but surely you can see how the exact same thing is now happening to Trump but in a reversed fashion and taken up a few notches... most people assume Obama was great and didn't do anything wrong at all, so it's pretty obvious what MSM sources had the largest impact on people. And it's obvious they are still having a very large impact on people because a large fraction of people believe Trump is terrible and does everything wrong.


That's because Trump is the President who represents the government. So Trump speaking against the press for speaking against him can easily be taken as the government trying to silence the press through intimidation.

When they deserve criticism I wont feel any empathy when they complain about receiving criticism, Trump has never attempted to censor them and they wouldn't stop regardless. Here's something Trump posted a few weeks ago saying he would never censor CNN despite how much he dislikes them, because censorship is a very dangerous game:

Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.......

.....Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police. If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all..

....Too many voices are being destroyed, some good & some bad, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Who is making the choices, because I can already tell you that too many mistakes are being made. Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!

twitter.com...



Right leaning outlets aren't being targeted if they can remain civil and don't spread bs. If you agree with spreading bs then I can see if you'd have a problem with these actions.

Well I could use the same argument you used and ask how you would even know this unless you follow a large number of right leaning channels on social media. I do and so I'm quite aware of the reality of the situation, you can call it "fake news" all you want but that doesn't change the facts, and if it doesn't stop there will be repercussions as Trump has warned.
edit on 12/9/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
You do not want to hear it, but the rest of the world (okay, not everyone, because not everyone has even heard about Trump I guess) would like another president, because Trump is a
childish,
narcisstic,
incapable,
terrified,
misogynistic,
golfplaying way too much,
loser of a president,

who will find a "special" place in history books. You know that kind of "special".

I do not think that Hillary Clinton would be any better, she seriously creeps me out with her robotic, frozen creep-smile.

Do better next term, thanks, the rest of the world (as above).



I live in South America and I, along with most of the population where I live think America is doing great right now, and he still have almost
6
years left.



There, I fixed it for you!



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Yes I agree they were biased against Obama to some extent, but surely you can see how the exact same thing is now now happening to Trump but in a reversed fashion and taken up a few notches... most people assume Obama was great and didn't do anything wrong at all, so it's pretty obvious what MSM sources had the largest impact on people. And it's obvious they are still having a very large impact on people because a large fraction of people believe Trump is terrible and does everything wrong.

DUH! That's why I've said that both sides do it in this thread. People have been saying on ATS that you need to look at all sides of a story to most fully understand it for a long time now. That is because it has been known for MUCH longer than Trump's run as a politician that the media is split down partisan sides.


When they deserve criticism I wont feel any empathy when they complain about receiving criticism, Trump has never attempted to censor them and they wouldn't stop regardless. Here's something Trump posted a few days ago saying he wouldn't censor CNN despite how much he likes them, because censorship is a very dangerous game:

Trump's words mean diddly to me. He lies so often that I just assume he is lying whenever he speaks. As Thanos says, I imagine lying is like breathing for him.

Here is an example of Trump's actions instead:
The Trump administration wants to tax protests. What happened to free speech?

Last month, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced the administration’s radical, anti-democratic rewriting of regulations governing free speech and demonstrations on public lands under federal jurisdiction in Washington. Under the proposal, which is open to public comment, the National Park Service (NPS) will charge protesters “event management” costs. This would include the cost of barricades and fencing erected at the discretion of police, the salaries of personnel deployed to monitor the protest, trash removal and sanitation charges, permit application charges and costs assessed on “harm to turf” — the effects of engaging in free speech on grass, as if our public green spaces are for ornamental viewing.

And it goes beyond just the Mall. Want to protest in front of the Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue? Under this proposal, you’ll have to take out your checkbook, because the NPS maintains control over the broad sidewalks of Pennsylvania Avenue. In addition to the upfront costs to even request a permit, you may be billed for the cost of barricades erected around the hotel — fencing you didn’t ask for but that the hotel wants.

You better believe this policy is unconstitutional.


Well I could use the same argument you used and ask how you would even know this unless you follow a large number of right leaning channels on social media. I do and so I'm quite aware of the reality of the situation, you can call it "fake news" all you want but that doesn't change the facts, and if it doesn't stop there will be repercussions as Trump has warned.

Repercussions? Like what? Trump telling social media outlets how to manage their businesses? That's a constitutional violation. Trump making it illegal or implement fines to ban these people form social media platforms? Again that is unconstitutional. What exactly do you think Trump can do as a retaliation that would be constitutional? Why would you support the government telling a business how to run its operations anyways? Aren't you a conservative? I thought conservative ideology was about letting businesses run their operations how they see fit.
edit on 12-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I'm independent. I don't like our political spectrum. With that said, there is hyperbolic people on the majority of partisan media weather it's cnn or fox and anyone in between.



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
In the parallel universe Hillary Clinton administration timeline the world as you know it ended several weeks ago, and is well into the post-apocalyptic world nightmares are made of now.

Be thankful for the interventions that made it possible for Trump to defeat her.




posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I’m still trying to figure out why people are angry about the press being tough on the president.

If all you want are fluff pieces about how great and amazing this administration is you want the opposite of a free press. You want the press to be controllable by the president, and by extension the government.

If you’re into that kind of thing I’m sure North Korea or Russia would be more up your alley. This is America.



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
if Hillary won, harvey weinstein is still making movies

Bill is cheating, like video game code, on Hillary all over the white house



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dislike and it happens all the time, when you ask a lib a question. They can't answer it so they dive off to another topic.

You brought up Fox and Glenn Beck as an example of conservative bias . I asked you for more examples and didn't get any .


edit on 12-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


DUH! That's why I've said that both sides do it in this thread. People have been saying on ATS that you need to look at all sides of a story to most fully understand it for a long time now. That is because it has been known for MUCH longer than Trump's run as a politician that the media is split down partisan sides.

Yeah but the difference here is it's been taken to a whole new level and if you cannot see that then I don't know what to say, it couldn't be any more clear.


Trump's words mean diddly to me. He lies so often that I just assume he is lying whenever he speaks. As Thanos says, I imagine lying is like breathing for him.

Lol weren't you just talking about taking a balanced and realistic perspective instead of painting a picture you want to see? You are clearly fabricating a reality you want to see by having such a slanted interpretation of everything Trump says.


You better believe this policy is unconstitutional.

Hold on though, wasn't Stefan and Lauren recently charged for the costs of policing protestors at one of their events? Do you think it's better to put the costs on the people trying to hold a civilized and peaceful event or the people trying to protest and disrupt the event? Or should the police just cover all the costs themselves using tax dollars? At the end of the day someone has the pay for the inconveniences and damages caused by their activity.


Repercussions? Like what? Trump telling social media outlets how to manage their businesses? That's a constitutional violation? Trump making it illegal or implement fines to ban these people? Again that is unconstitutional. What exactly do you think Trump can do as a retaliation that would be constitutional? Why would you support the government telling a business how to run its operations anyways? Aren't you a conservative? I thought conservative ideology was about letting businesses run their operations how they see fit.

Like serious investigations into how they are violating free speech rights and serious fines. A judge already decided to declare Twitter as a public space with free speech laws in order to rule that Trump couldn't block anyone and couldn't do anything about all the people who troll him. So if they want to go down that path it's easy to keep following it and punish these companies for violating the constitutional free speech rights of people using their platforms. I'm libertarian not conservative, but yes I do believe in free market principles and don't like over-regulation, but I don't really see anything excessive or over the top about regulating massive monopolies who are using their power to silence vast swaths of people and even attempting to affect the outcome of elections.
edit on 12/9/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
Maybe Hillary and George Soros could take a sea cruise in a 747 and splash down in the Sargasso Sea, alone, with nothing but liver & onion plane dinners and warm beer.


I mean it in the nicest way...



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yeah but the difference here is it's been taken to a whole new level and if you cannot see that then I don't know what to say, it couldn't be any more clear.

No it isn't. It's just more in your face because liberal outlets are more mainstream than right wing outlets. Also, liberals outnumber conservatives in the USA.



Lol weren't you just talking about taking a balanced and realistic perspective instead of painting a picture you want to see? You are clearly fabricating a reality you want to see by having such a slanted interpretation of everything Trump says.

How does judging someone by their actions instead of their words create a fabricated reality exactly? That is literally the traditional way to judge a person's sincerity. Try again. Also, you are making stuff up about me again.


Hold on though, wasn't Stefan and Lauren recently charged for the costs of policing protestors at one of their events? Do you think it's better to put the costs on the people trying to hold a civilized and peaceful event or the people trying to protest and disrupt the event? Or should the police just cover all the costs themselves using tax dollars?

It doesn't matter. There is no price on exercising our 1st Amendment rights. There is even a SCOTUS decision backing this up from the 1930's.

The Supreme Court has made this abundantly clear. As it ruled in 1939: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.”

Face it. This is unconstitutional and if you think otherwise you don't understand our constitution.

At the end of the day someone has the pay for the inconveniences and damages caused by their activity.

Lol. You didn't read the article I posted did you? For someone whining about others not getting the full picture why are you commenting on things you aren't fully informed on? Wanna know how I know you didn't read the article too? Because this very point is brought up and dismissed in the article.

The NPS cloaks this new effort to stifle free speech by claiming that demonstrations burden the agency’s resources. But its own figures demonstrate that the number of permits for protests is dwarfed by permits for corporate entities that use public lands in Washington for commercial purposes, including movies and “special events.” If the agency needs additional funds and Congress won’t appropriate them, why not increase charges to such for-profit applicants to avoid infringing on constitutional rights?



Like serious investigations into how they are violating free speech rights and serious fines. A judge already decided to declare Twitter as a public space with free speech laws in order to rule that Trump couldn't block anyone and couldn't do anything about all the people who troll him. So if they want to go down that path it's not easy to keep following it and punish these companies for violating the constitutional free speech rights of people using their platforms. I'm libertarian not conservative, but yes I do believe in free market principles and don't like over-regulation, but I don't really see anything excessive or over the top about regulating massive monopolies who are using their power to silence vast swaths of people and even attempting to affect the outcome of elections.

How can a company violate the 1st Amendment when it isn't part of the government? An investigation into a company violating free speech will turn up nothing as the 1st amendment begins and ends at government stifling free speech. Not companies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The reason a judge ruled against Trump on Twitter is because Trump is the President. He speaks for our government. The government isn't allowed to censor speech. So Trump can't ban people from his Twitter if he is using it as an official platform to announce government actions (which he is doing).

Do you even attempt to understand the court cases you bring up? Because it sounds like you don't and are just trying to use them as talking points for an issue you don't fully understand in a country you don't live in.



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
As much as I prefer Trump.

I doubt things would be much different.

Hillary wasn’t as liberal as most believe...




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join