First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Why is it acceptable for the media to protect Hillary?
19492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Online
Posted 10/9/16 , edited 10/9/16
Honestly, I don't get it either. I actually liked her prior to her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. The shear number of scandals she and Bill get a pass on is mind blowing. Smashing devices with emails that Congress depends to see after receiving a court order, bad judgement calls when it comes to Bengazi's security, overthrowing a dictator in Libyan just to leave a power vacuum for ISIS to exploit? Hell, in 2008 Obama said it best when he said "she will say anything to get elected" so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

Also, gotta remember the powers at be have an invested interest in this election. There is a reason she is getting way, way more money than Trump from investment bankers, someone has to keep their gravy train rolling and with recent cables dumped on the web by WikiLeaks now their is zero doubt she will come through for them. Moral of the story, the ruling class will do anything to get their candidate/puppet in office and that includes brainwashing the clueless populace through their media outlets.

To answer OP's question, of course not.
52842 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/16
Guys, ladies.. Those two won't be President, the only one that will is Marcus Octavius!

6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 10/9/16
The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment. As the New York Times has said they do not intend to impartial in this election. They will and have been doing anything they can to destroy Trump. This is mostly old hat for them which is a big part of why so few people actually trust modern media. They have long since surrendered any journalistic integrity in order to push their left-wing agenda. The difference is that in this election they have abandoned even the pretense of impartiality.

And this isn't a right-wing conspiracy. According to the Times itself, they don't have to be fair because its Donald Trump. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

They protect Hillary because they want her to win. Because they are part of the corrupt establishment she is the face of. Because this establishment knows better than the unwashed rabble.
Sogno- 
45650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/9/16
why is it acceptable for the media to do anything it does
Posted 10/9/16

Ravenstein wrote:

The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment.


People like Ravenstein is your future, America.
53114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/9/16
Watching Trumpies and Clintonites twist themselves into knots to defend the wickedness of either (often by tiptoeing around it and hoping nobody addresses it) is morbidly amusing.

You stupid people are the REASON our government is so bad, and frankly deserve every drop of contempt you're sure to get from American society in the coming years. Sorry, but don't be shocked that you get filthy if you sleep in shit. You two don't want to be associated with this nonsense? Then stop defending it; seriously, it's not complicated. It's embarrassing to watch grown adults contort the facts and lie to themselves and others that one of these polished turds is somehow superior to the other; they BOTH suck, and frankly the cultic defense of EITHER is sickening. You people should be ashamed of yourselves, you really should; you'll be the kind of person, when asked thirty years later, to adamantly deny voting for either.

That being said...? The collusion by the MSM with the Clinton campaign, as was brought to light by WikiLeaks, is inexcusable. It is the very DEFINITION of political opportunism that they had all this stuff showing Trump to be a con-man and a liar and a scumbag and did not use it until it was most convenient for the wicked witch of Benghazi. Why didn't they release it in '05? Was the dignity of these women not important enough? How about why didn't they release this during the Republican primary, are Republicans and Americans at large not allowed to know that a candidate is a scumbag and deplorable human being because it would be disadvantageous to the Democrats to not have it for October? WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT SOMEBODY RUNNING FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, AND NOT JUST WHEN IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO DEMOCRATS!
37307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/9/16 , edited 10/9/16

Hrafna wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment.


People like Ravenstein is your future, America.


So, I googled Ravenstein, and I found that he was a cartographer. What in hell does that have to do with anything? I'm not being critical of you. I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Wikipedia has a very benign article about him. The most controversial thing said about him is that he estimated the Earth could only support six billion people before they started to starve, or something like that, and that he didn't seem to be too broken hearted about it.

So what?
60157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 10/9/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment.


People like Ravenstein is your future, America.


So, I googled Ravenstein, and I found that he was a cartographer. What in hell does that have to do with anything? I'm not being critical of you. I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Wikipedia has a very benign article about him. The most controversial thing said about him is that he estimated the Earth could only support six billion people before they started to starve, or something like that, and that he didn't seem to be too broken hearted about it.

So what?


Er.. he was referring to the CR user, Ravenstein, whom he quoted in his reply, not coincidentally.
37307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/9/16

staphen wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment.


People like Ravenstein is your future, America.


So, I googled Ravenstein, and I found that he was a cartographer. What in hell does that have to do with anything? I'm not being critical of you. I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Wikipedia has a very benign article about him. The most controversial thing said about him is that he estimated the Earth could only support six billion people before they started to starve, or something like that, and that he didn't seem to be too broken hearted about it.

So what?


Er.. he was referring to the CR user, Ravenstein, whom he quoted in his reply, not coincidentally.


Haa!! Haa!! Haa!! Haa!! LOLOLOL
6729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CA
Offline
Posted 10/9/16 , edited 10/10/16
Its acceptable because while you may complain about it, you and most everyone else are unwilling to do anything about it. Same reason why our election system is a joke with the lowest common denominator rising to the top like pond scum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
Posted 10/9/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


staphen wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

So, I googled Ravenstein, and I found that he was a cartographer. What in hell does that have to do with anything? I'm not being critical of you. I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Wikipedia has a very benign article about him. The most controversial thing said about him is that he estimated the Earth could only support six billion people before they started to starve, or something like that, and that he didn't seem to be too broken hearted about it.

So what?


Er.. he was referring to the CR user, Ravenstein, whom he quoted in his reply, not coincidentally.


Haa!! Haa!! Haa!! Haa!! LOLOLOL


No-no, I'm definitely just some libtard on drugs talking about some random retarded cartographer from the most boring century of human history. I would never dare make fun of a band of autistic schizos bonding over a circle jerk reaffirming the validity of some grand leftist plot to rob you, the common sense, intelligence type guys, the ones most firmly placed in reality, of your rights and ream you up the ass with our scary PC lingo. That would just be stupid of me. I'm totally with you. Down with the system! Vote Trump 2016! >_>

I'm sorry. I'm grumpy. This baby haven't had his nighty-night nap yet.
8495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 10/10/16 , edited 10/10/16
You know, I was watching Sargon, and while I disagree with him on his logic or basically anything, the malevolence versus stupidity thing might be something worth looking into.

People know, or think they know, what stupidity is. They can come up with an example of stupidity, or perceived stupidity, even in politics. Malevolence, is far harder to explain in the presence of politics. The manipulation requires an understanding of politics I don't think is beyond reach of the common man, but is far beyond the interest of the usual sort of people who consider themselves invested in the political life. People today pat themselves on the pat themselves on the back for being well informed, yet they are only told what they want to hear, in a subject they pretend to understand.

I admit, a reason I don't hate Hillary more is because I'm not as well informed as I'd like to be. She served 2009 to 2013, and I was mostly in Middle School at that time.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/10/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

The mainstream media protects Hillary and vilifies Trump because they have been taken over by a radical left-wing establishment.


People like Ravenstein is your future, America.


So, I googled Ravenstein, and I found that he was a cartographer. What in hell does that have to do with anything? I'm not being critical of you. I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Wikipedia has a very benign article about him. The most controversial thing said about him is that he estimated the Earth could only support six billion people before they started to starve, or something like that, and that he didn't seem to be too broken hearted about it.

So what?


Don't take him seriously, he doesn't come to political threads to get information or share opinion, he comes to these threads to be condescending and sarcastic to people who disagree with the opinions he learned to regurgitate.
1236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Helsinki
Online
Posted 10/10/16
Big corp media is corrupt to the bone. Big buck in Wall Street has invested much in Hillary's election, therefore anything goes. Most of corporate media are in fact apologists and acolytes who are paid to present her as an admirable candidate. Bill's exploits are gone and forgotten.

Same thing in Europe, where big media is mostly favoring Clinton presidency. Open borders, secretive trade deals, funding extremists... Follow the money.
2248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/10/16
It's not "acceptable" in a real-world sense. What's happening is that the existing powers of the establishment are desperate to have her win so they can keep hold of power for a bit longer.

In 4 years time, some black rioters might be the least of your problems when it comes to mobs and destruction.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.