Anonymous wrote:It's not media bias or slander if the story is factually true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not media bias or slander if the story is factually true.

Hmmm - by your logic, there would be no bias if a news site published ONLY negative (though factually true) articles about HRC, and only positive (though true) articles about trump?

I do not think you understand the meaning of the term "media bias."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

Completely agree. I am a very reluctant Trump supporter (I think) but this is pushing me over the edge. The Washington Post has been insufferable

I agree. They don’t even try to hide their biased support for Clinton in their reporting. It is shameful, really.
True journalism is dead when it comes to the WaPo.

Anonymous wrote:It's not media bias or slander if the story is factually true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

It's not "blatant media bias," right winger. The Russians released the emails for Trump's pleasure to coincide with the DNC. It was reported, there was very little story there, the end. I'm sorry that the media cannot keep prosecuting your personal vendettas, but Trump's unforgivable ignorance is an ongoing train wreck that he keeps highlighting. With his "media genius."

And, you have proof of this?

Yeah, I'm going to need to see the proof.


It certainly seems convenient, though, - to blame it all on big bad Vlad instead of focusing on the truth of the emails, doesn't it?

I noticed Hillary's newest campaign chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, never even tried to disown her emails. She didn't even try to spin it after she was caught red handed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

It's not "blatant media bias," right winger. The Russians released the emails for Trump's pleasure to coincide with the DNC. It was reported, there was very little story there, the end. I'm sorry that the media cannot keep prosecuting your personal vendettas, but Trump's unforgivable ignorance is an ongoing train wreck that he keeps highlighting. With his "media genius."

And, you have proof of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

It's not "blatant media bias," right winger. The Russians released the emails for Trump's pleasure to coincide with the DNC. It was reported, there was very little story there, the end. I'm sorry that the media cannot keep prosecuting your personal vendettas, but Trump's unforgivable ignorance is an ongoing train wreck that he keeps highlighting. With his "media genius."

And, you have proof of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

It's not "blatant media bias," right winger. The Russians released the emails for Trump's pleasure to coincide with the DNC. It was reported, there was very little story there, the end. I'm sorry that the media cannot keep prosecuting your personal vendettas, but Trump's unforgivable ignorance is an ongoing train wreck that he keeps highlighting. With his "media genius."

Anonymous wrote:
Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for Trump but I'm not telling anyone. Maybe that's part of the problem. But as I see it, people who are against Trump are SOOOO against him that they can't be nice or have a normal conversation about why Trump vs. Hillary. Too many people get defensive or try to get you to change your mind. I'm all for listening to another perspective, but not at the risk of being attacked.

For what's it worth, here are the main reasons I'm voting Trump:
1) What Trump actually says vs. the media headlines/quotes taken out of context are two different things. Does he say stuff he shouldn't? Absolutely. And some of it I certainly don't agree with. But, see point 2.
2) He's not an established politician. He's new to the scene and will shake things up. I think our political system needs that. And because he isn't a politician, he's rougher around the edges. Hasn't had the media training or experience all the other candidates have.
3) He's a successful businessman. He knows how to put the right people in the right position to create a successful company/business. I see that as the job of the President.
4) And after last night's speech, he's bringing the Republican party to a more middle ground--I like that.
5) And last but not least, I agree that neither Presidential hopeful is ideal. But with Trump, at least you know where you stand. With Hillary, it's a series of lies and skirting the system. To me, she's not trustworthy.

+1

I understand what Trump meant very well. I am frustrated with the media twisting his words. That's one of the main reasons that my spouse, who is not political and rarely voted before, will vote for Trump in November. I will not vote for Ted Cruz type of Republican. But with Trump it's an easy choice for me.

Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Trump offers some fresh ideas that no other politicians have the guts to discuss. When he first brought up NATO, I think it was with Wolf Blitzer, the press went all out spreading misinformation that he wanted to abandon NATO or destroy our alliances. The press also twisted his words that he wanted to give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons ... What Trump meant was very simple, our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea etc are not paying their fair share of the cost. That's it. He has set the tone.

He doesn't have a clue about NATO or anything else that is more complicated than his Twitter feed. Any idiot can say Europe should do more, etc., but the President should know the facts.
Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

Completely agree. I am a very reluctant Trump supporter (I think) but this is pushing me over the edge. The Washington Post has been insufferable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for Trump but I'm not telling anyone. Maybe that's part of the problem. But as I see it, people who are against Trump are SOOOO against him that they can't be nice or have a normal conversation about why Trump vs. Hillary. Too many people get defensive or try to get you to change your mind. I'm all for listening to another perspective, but not at the risk of being attacked.

For what's it worth, here are the main reasons I'm voting Trump:
1) What Trump actually says vs. the media headlines/quotes taken out of context are two different things. Does he say stuff he shouldn't? Absolutely. And some of it I certainly don't agree with. But, see point 2.
2) He's not an established politician. He's new to the scene and will shake things up. I think our political system needs that. And because he isn't a politician, he's rougher around the edges. Hasn't had the media training or experience all the other candidates have.
3) He's a successful businessman. He knows how to put the right people in the right position to create a successful company/business. I see that as the job of the President.
4) And after last night's speech, he's bringing the Republican party to a more middle ground--I like that.
5) And last but not least, I agree that neither Presidential hopeful is ideal. But with Trump, at least you know where you stand. With Hillary, it's a series of lies and skirting the system. To me, she's not trustworthy.

+1

I understand what Trump meant very well. I am frustrated with the media twisting his words. That's one of the main reasons that my spouse, who is not political and rarely voted before, will vote for Trump in November. I will not vote for Ted Cruz type of Republican. But with Trump it's an easy choice for me.

Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Trump offers some fresh ideas that no other politicians have the guts to discuss. When he first brought up NATO, I think it was with Wolf Blitzer, the press went all out spreading misinformation that he wanted to abandon NATO or destroy our alliances. The press also twisted his words that he wanted to give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons ... What Trump meant was very simple, our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea etc are not paying their fair share of the cost. That's it. He has set the tone.

He doesn't have a clue about NATO or anything else that is more complicated than his Twitter feed. Any idiot can say Europe should do more, etc., but the President should know the facts.
Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Just look at the front page of CNN on any recent day. Multiple hit pieces on Trump - many really stretching too. CNN reeks of desperation.

It's amazing the lengths to which CNN and the other networks are going to paint Trump in a bad light -and yet there's so little written about Hillary, even after the media was just handed the DNC's damning emails. Has anyone at CNN even bothered to read those?

Blatant media bias is on full display at the moment. And it's pissing people off. Just check out the polls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for Trump but I'm not telling anyone. Maybe that's part of the problem. But as I see it, people who are against Trump are SOOOO against him that they can't be nice or have a normal conversation about why Trump vs. Hillary. Too many people get defensive or try to get you to change your mind. I'm all for listening to another perspective, but not at the risk of being attacked.

For what's it worth, here are the main reasons I'm voting Trump:
1) What Trump actually says vs. the media headlines/quotes taken out of context are two different things. Does he say stuff he shouldn't? Absolutely. And some of it I certainly don't agree with. But, see point 2.
2) He's not an established politician. He's new to the scene and will shake things up. I think our political system needs that. And because he isn't a politician, he's rougher around the edges. Hasn't had the media training or experience all the other candidates have.
3) He's a successful businessman. He knows how to put the right people in the right position to create a successful company/business. I see that as the job of the President.
4) And after last night's speech, he's bringing the Republican party to a more middle ground--I like that.
5) And last but not least, I agree that neither Presidential hopeful is ideal. But with Trump, at least you know where you stand. With Hillary, it's a series of lies and skirting the system. To me, she's not trustworthy.

+1

I understand what Trump meant very well. I am frustrated with the media twisting his words. That's one of the main reasons that my spouse, who is not political and rarely voted before, will vote for Trump in November. I will not vote for Ted Cruz type of Republican. But with Trump it's an easy choice for me.

Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Trump offers some fresh ideas that no other politicians have the guts to discuss. When he first brought up NATO, I think it was with Wolf Blitzer, the press went all out spreading misinformation that he wanted to abandon NATO or destroy our alliances. The press also twisted his words that he wanted to give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons ... What Trump meant was very simple, our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea etc are not paying their fair share of the cost. That's it. He has set the tone.

He doesn't have a clue about NATO or anything else that is more complicated than his Twitter feed. Any idiot can say Europe should do more, etc., but the President should know the facts.
Can you cite any examples when the media "twisted his words"? The NY Times posted his thoughts about NATO. The GOP foreign policy shops went berserk. Trump reiterated his comments in his speech last night. Did the Time twist his words?

Anonymous wrote:If you care about our economy and jobs, HRC isn't the President for you. Hillary supports TPP just like her husband did NAFTA and it killed the manufacturing sector. She said she'd destroy coal, tried to back-pedal but those folks remember. She's about as trustworthy as money lender from the mob.

Trump isn't my ideal candidate, but I believe he would fill positions with good people, actually try to fix this a like the VA (which is important to me) and won't use his position to get money for his friends and himself like Clinton did.

I honestly hope the people who hacked her systems release more info in her, so we get to see the "real" Hillary. And, I don't believe it was the Russians. Any good hacker won't leave their mark and the FBI still hasn't released their findings on who they believe it is.

How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.