Aurata speaks of media bias but sources Russia Today to prove his points.
Quote from: Savant on May 04, 2017, 08:03:26 amAurata speaks of media bias but sources Russia Today to prove his points. Its not about which messenger bears the news. Its about the evidence itself.If someone is interviewed by both CNN and RT and says the same thing each time, does that mean they were wrong when RT broadcast it?
It's a really minor role? Not sure.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32 Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07 Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit
MSM is Fox News. MSM is NPR. MSM is a lot of (different) things which can be defined a lot of different ways.
Quote from: Life Improvement on May 04, 2017, 04:37:00 amMSM is Fox News. MSM is NPR. MSM is a lot of (different) things which can be defined a lot of different ways.You always wuss out. Trust in mass media is at an all time low, by far most Americans do NOT trust it, and that Gallop poll was done before the election. Heck even my liberal friends now mostly admit it is lies, the Trump thing woke people up that MSM is basically North Korea propaganda, with a bigger budget. And yet you always post on here quoting MSM as "proof". WTF dude? You are way out there in radical-leftist fantasy land. Corporate propaganda is not proof of anything.
Some excerpts. See the link for the complete article.A 2016 Review: There’s Reason to Be Skeptical of a Comey EffectNate Cohn @Nate_Cohn MAY 8, 2017https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upshot/a-2016-review-theres-reason-to-be-skeptical-of-a-comey-effect.html?_r=0On Friday, Oct. 28, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, sent a letter to Congress about new evidence in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Politicians, analysts and journalists are still debating whether the letter cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency. It’s certainly possible. But I am not at all sure,……….Most important, the polls taken before the letter were as bad for Mrs. Clinton as those conducted after it. Again, there aren’t many of these polls, but taken at face value there’s a case that Mrs. Clinton had nearly or even completely bottomed out by the time the Comey letter was released. Even if she had not, the trend line heading into the Comey letter was bad enough that there’s no need to assume that the Comey letter was necessary for any additional erosion in her lead…….In retrospect, there is virtually no evidence to support the view that Mrs. Clinton really had a six-point lead by Oct. 28, even if it was a very reasonable interpretation of the polls that had been released to that point. She didn’t have a six-point lead in any of the 16 (sometimes low-quality) national surveys that went into the field on or after Oct. 23 and were completed before the Comey letter, including her steadily shrinking lead in the ABC/Washington Post tracker. A new report from the American Association of Public Opinion Research on 2016 polling reached a similar conclusion……This doesn’t mean that Mr. Comey didn’t or couldn’t have played a pivotal role. The fairly sparse polling makes it hard to be sure of just how much Mrs. Clinton’s standing fell before the Comey letter. Maybe our Florida poll was a dud after all. Mr. Trump won the state by only a point, although many of the trends evident in our poll — like lower black turnout, a less-than-record-setting showing by Mrs. Clinton among Hispanic voters, and Mr. Trump’s surge among Republican and white working-class voters — held true on election night.It’s hard to rule out the possibility that Mr. Comey was decisive in such a close election. Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point. Even if there were no evidence to support a shift after Mr. Comey’s letter, there would still be reason to wonder whether his actions were decisive. The story dominated the news for much of the week before the election. One could imagine how Mr. Comey’s letter might have swayed voters who remained undecided heading into Election Day.But in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive.
"There's no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians," Trump said in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt.http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-lester-holt-interview-nbc-news-2017-5
No good lawyer would have let Trump give Lester Holt this interviewhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/11/no-good-lawyer-would-have-let-trump-give-lester-holt-this-interview/?utm_term=.6902058ee30cPresident Trump’s interview with Lester Holt was so politically and legally problematic, one must assume no one with a year of law school under his belt would have recommended Trump do it. As The Post summarizes…
Trump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on May 12, 2017, 10:02:51 amTrump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.Politically, I don’t think that’s the position that the Democrats and the elitist media would take……
Quote from: eastreef on May 12, 2017, 12:42:54 pmQuote from: Mr.DeMartino on May 12, 2017, 10:02:51 amTrump wasn't under oath when he was interviewing Lester Holt.As far as legal stuff, he can simply say that that was his belief at the time, given the information he had. If it comes out someone did have a connection, he can simply say he was unaware they did.Politically, I don’t think that’s the position that the Democrats and the elitist media would take……Politically, if it was Obama or a Hillary Clinton saying those same things then I think they [Republicans] would have convened at least a 10th congressional investigation by now - in the hope that someone can fabricate that smoking gun that's not there.
Donald Trump claims he invented 'priming the pump' phrasehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/donald-trump-claims-invented-priming-pump-phrase/"I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good," Mr Trump told "The Economist" magazine in an interview published on Thursday.
Quote from: Life Improvement on May 13, 2017, 12:49:11 pmDonald Trump claims he invented 'priming the pump' phrasehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/donald-trump-claims-invented-priming-pump-phrase/"I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good," Mr Trump told "The Economist" magazine in an interview published on Thursday. Please stop twisting his words, Life Support. Getting tired of your endless spin to make Trump look like a moron. Everyone knows he *meant* that he was the first to use the phrase as a sexual metaphor.
He was responding to an inquiry about his plan for tax cuts (the bulk of which would go to the upper 1%):