Trump unbieleivable

[Hagar]

34 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I guess we all have differenct perceptions of the media.  From my perspective, any Republican is an "absolute dream for the media".  They destroyed Sara Palin and Herman Cain and are very accustomed to doing so successfully.  They have done their level best to do it to Donald Trump since the day he began competing against 16 other Republicans.   I know you wont admit this, but the vast majority of the media is deeply "in the tank" for whomever is running for office from the left side of the spectrum..  If Trump is the dream for the media, my suggestion is that  he is merely the "current dream" and that the media is quite good at manufacturing and perpetuating the "dream" of its choice.

Just saw this and thought of your post.  You'll love it.  Even hoops will get a chuckle out of it.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

39 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I guess we all have differenct perceptions of the media.  From my perspective, any Republican is an "absolute dream for the media".  They destroyed Sara Palin and Herman Cain and are very accustomed to doing so successfully.  They have done their level best to do it to Donald Trump since the day he began competing against 16 other Republicans.   I know you wont admit this, but the vast majority of the media is deeply "in the tank" for whomever is running for office from the left side of the spectrum..  If Trump is the dream for the media, my suggestion is that  he is merely the "current dream" and that the media is quite good at manufacturing and perpetuating the "dream" of its choice.

Like with Palin, no "manufacturing" is necessary with Trump.  As long as one can hear, Palin and Trump are quite adept at "destroying" themselves.   I continue to be disappointed in the persistent blaming of the media,. I guess taking personal responsibility and owning one's mistakes is a thing of the past.  And that is more of a nightmare to me than a dream. 

[new tobie]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Talking with a few local Koch employees and paraphrasing what they tell you or coming to a broad conclusion based on a few conversations is somewhat less than compelling evidence that the bottom employees are consistenly treated badly.  And just a quick FYI, I happen to be personal friends with someone within the Koch human resources department.  I feel the President was elected for several reasons.  Yes, one of those is the promise of free stuff.  Do I have scientific evidence that this is true.  No.  I am awating your scientific evidence that says otherwise.  Regarding the lies told?-  This race consists of a very polilshed, politically correct liar against an unpolished, brash, outspoken, politically incorrect liar.

 

Trump is not and unpolished liar.  He is a Profesional liar. Not offering free stuff is not the reason that he is not running away with a election against a flawed Hillary Clinton. His mouth, his history and trustworthyness is his problem. Its not the THE LIBERAL MEDIA...FREE STUFF...DEAD VOTORS...or ILLEGALS. Its TRUMP!!!!!

 

 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

First of all i talk with koch employees all the time. How often do you speak with them. You say the president was elected to two terms because of free stuff, where did you find this data. How did you determine that welfare recipients dont vote for republicans. Many rich folks want Hillary in office and many rich folk want the donald. I could say anything on this board as long as its against Democrats Obama or Hillary and you wouldn't say a word. Trump said that if he shot someone on main street his base would still vote for him. I cant see myself voting for Hillary, but would vote for Bill if he were running. Has Hillary lied and will she lie more...yes. Has Donald lied and will he lie more....yes. Donald wanted to vote for Hillary himself in 08 and has been friend with the Clintons. If he continues to say things to hurt his campaign I am starting to believe that he is working for the Clintons

 

 

.

Unbelievable post by tobie. Are you sure this is you? I mean, more than two lines and all..

[new tobie]

When it really gets down to it most of us are better people than the party affiliations and politicians that we defend? We honestly need a strong 3rd party. Many people would leave the D and R. The D and R wouldn't like that. Look at how long some have been in congress. Politicians  need a divided group of people 

[BS Wildcats]

3 minutes ago, new tobie said:

When it really gets down to it most of us are better people than the party affiliations and politicians that we defend? We honestly need a strong 3rd party. Many people would leave the D and R. The D and R wouldn't like that. Look at how long some have been in congress. Politicians  need a divided group of people 

Exactly why term limits are needed.  No matter the party affiliation, after being in office for many years, they are all useless as tits on a boar hog.

[new tobie]

12 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Exactly why term limits are needed.  No matter the party affiliation, after being in office for many years, they are all useless as tits on a boar hog.

I truly believe that most politicians care more about themselves  and their cronies than the people they are representing

[BS Wildcats]

1 minute ago, new tobie said:

I truly believe that most politicians care more about themselves  and their cronies than the people they are representing

Absolutely

[Big girl]

On 8/4/2016 at 9:57 AM, CraigS said:

Yes, Trump is a BILLIONAIRE, which makes him "not like us"....but yet he is. Trump isn't your usual tea sipping PC rich guy. He's made his billions hanging around construction workers, which we CAN relate to.

He tells it like it is, doesn't pull punches, not worried about what others think or say...basically what all of wish we could do, regardless of which side your on.

So, to think Trump keeps "saying stupid stuff" is quite subjective...it's only stupid to those who oppose him, Clinton says plenty "stupid stuff" as well. For each time they do, it fires up their base....the real question is this......will Trump get out the vote of the "grumpy old white guy" the same way obama got out the vote of the "grumpy old black guy"? The difference will be how well Trump can appeal to enough "others" to counter the "free loaders" that will certainly vote Clinton.

Clinton is coherent thoughts. Trump doesnt.

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Unbelievable post by tobie. Are you sure this is you? I mean, more than two lines and all..

He is not working for the Clintons. He is an idiot. He doesn't put much thought into what he says. He is a loose cannon.

[baddog]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

He is not working for the Clintons. He is an idiot. He doesn't put much thought into what he says. He is a loose cannon.

Let's see.......an idiot, loose cannon, poor choice of words.....let's not vote for that guy. Let's vote for the one who leaves a trail of dead people in her wake. Don't you even question that or are you more concerned with what Trump might belt out next? Serious question.

I know, you refuse to answer that.

[LumRaiderFan]

13 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Like with Palin, no "manufacturing" is necessary with Trump.  As long as one can hear, Palin and Trump are quite adept at "destroying" themselves.   I continue to be disappointed in the persistent blaming of the media,. I guess taking personal responsibility and owning one's mistakes is a thing of the past.  And that is more of a nightmare to me than a dream. 

Just curious, what is it that Palin said that destroyed her...surely you can provide examples.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Just curious, what is it that Palin said that destroyed her...surely you can provide examples.

I know this little interview was hard-hitting journalism and unfair questions but...

"I read all the periodicals."

"Which ones in particular?"

"I don't know, all of the ones put in front of me."

"Can you name one?"

"Umm, no."

(And don't call me Shirley.)

 

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I know this little interview was hard-hitting journalism and unfair questions but...

"I read all the periodicals."

"Which ones in particular?"

"I don't know, all of the ones put in front of me."

"Can you name one?"

"Umm, no."

(And don't call me Shirley.)

 

That's it??? destroyed...lol.

But I would bet you will still support hillary in spite of her email scandal(s) / lying to the American people, her latest budget proposal, and just the fact that she's proven to be a liar and crook.

It amazes me how liberals can equate a perceived verbal mistake to REAL actions...it really does.

 

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

That's it??? destroyed...lol.

But I would bet you will still support hillary in spite of her email scandal(s) / lying to the American people, her latest budget proposal, and just the fact that she's proven to be a liar and crook.

It amazes me how liberals can equate a perceived verbal mistake to REAL actions...it really does.

 

You asked me what did it.  And yes, she became a laughing stock after that interview where she looked like a dunce.  You asked the question, I answered it.  Whether it was justified is a different question and discussion.  

And maybe "destroyed" wasn't the best term but it was illustrative of her chances the more she opened her mouth.  Of course you are free to "refudiate" that premise.  Oops, there's another one...  

[stevenash]

15 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Like with Palin, no "manufacturing" is necessary with Trump.  As long as one can hear, Palin and Trump are quite adept at "destroying" themselves.   I continue to be disappointed in the persistent blaming of the media,. I guess taking personal responsibility and owning one's mistakes is a thing of the past.  And that is more of a nightmare to me than a dream. 

Then , if I am understanding you correctly, you are of the considered opinion ( in all honesty, of course) that the media is very objective and equitable in its coverage of the two candidates?

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You asked me what did it.  And yes, she became a laughing stock after that interview where she looked like a dunce.  You asked the question, I answered it.  Whether it was justified is a different question and discussion.  

And maybe "destroyed" wasn't the best term but it was illustrative of her chances the more she opened her mouth.  Of course you are free to "refudiate" that premise.  Oops, there's another one...  

Laughing stock to you, charlie gibson and the liberals, maybe...he's the one that came off looking like a gotcha dufus.

So back to my comment, does something like this overshadow the actions of clinton as far as your support?

Libs seem to be very small minded and put much more importance on perception rather than actual actions and accomplishments...am I wrong?

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Then , if I am understanding you correctly, you are of the considered opinion ( in all honesty, of course) that the media is very objective and equitable in its coverage of the two candidates?

lol...that's really all you need to know, but I was gonna give him a pass.

[TxHoops]

11 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Then , if I am understanding you correctly, you are of the considered opinion ( in all honesty, of course) that the media is very objective and equitable in its coverage of the two candidates?

Not at all.  Journalists, like all of us, have their own beliefs and biases.  Some try to put them aside, some don't, regardless of which side they are on.  I think it is overplayed at times; they all like a good story.   Hillary's husband gave them plenty of fuel which they were happy to jump on, throughout his terms.  There wasn't an outcry about the conservative media being unfair to him; they were all happy to write about it because it sold papers and drew viewers.  

As for Trump, I have read negative press about him in the last couple of weeks, in the National Review, by George Will...but I suppose that is the conservative media picking on him...oh wait...

Or, as you can appreciate, maybe at some point it's not the press and some need to take personal responsibility for their actions or words...

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Not at all.  Journalists, like all of us, have their own beliefs and biases.  Some try to put them aside, some don't, regardless of which side they are on.  I think it is overplayed at times; they all like a good story.   Hillary's husband gave them plenty of fuel which they were happy to jump on, throughout his terms.  There wasn't an outcry about the conservative media being unfair to him; they were all happy to write about it because it sold papers and drew viewers.  

As for Trump, I have read negative press about him in the last couple of weeks, in the National Review, by George Will...but I suppose that is the conservative media picking on him...oh wait...

Or, as you can appreciate, maybe at some point it's not the press and some need to take personal responsibility for their actions or words...

So did the media treat the Kahn family and Smith family equally, in your opinion?

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Laughing stock to you, charlie gibson and the liberals, maybe...he's the one that came off looking like a gotcha dufus.

So back to my comment, does something like this overshadow the actions of clinton as far as your support?

Libs seem to be very small minded and put much more importance on perception rather than actual actions and accomplishments...am I wrong?

C'mon.  Not the liberal perception.  The national perception.  She became a joke plenty of people on both sides of the aisle and many in the middle. Let's just say the term "dufus" is very appropriate in this discussion

To answer your question, it depends.   I definitely don't want an someone who is not very intelligent in one of the high offices.  As far as who I support, it depends on a number of things, not the least of which is the candidate who most closely aligns with my personal views and priorities.  I don't discount your point about trustworthiness either.  That is a certainly a factor.  

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So did the media treat the Kahn family and Smith family equally, in your opinion?

No, I thought Fox News was very unfair to the Kahn family...

[TxHoops]

Has George Will been unfair to Trump since Will is too conservative?  Has the National Review been overly biased against Trump with their "charlatan" articles?  Has the conservative press seems to have been exposing their prejudices of late in picking on the Donald? 

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No, I thought Fox News was very unfair to the Kahn family...

Strange you single Fox out, but are OK with chris matthews comments about Mrs. Smith...tells me all I need to know...you are truly clueless about media bias.

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Strange you single Fox out, but are OK with chris matthews comments about Mrs. Smith...tells me all I need to know...you are truly clueless about media bias.

That was a joke.  But there you go with the "clueless" insults.  Small mindedness tends to lead there.  And also leaves plenty of room for jokes to fly over...

And if you brush up in those adult literacy classes in Lumberville, you would see in my reponse to Nash that I clearly believe biases exist in the media...