President Donald J. Trump

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Is CNN non-fringey & mainstream enough for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESUUhncaYk&ebc=ANyPxKp4R2cE35l9-06a0NLLqYOqZnSV2x9qDKqRMA2zF6GIhtaEWCBS3EXeIZJ1pBma0Bu7hdZh
But no; it's the other side who are the whacko nutjobs because they don't trust a media that is so obviously & admittedly biased. 

[albrecht]

My favorite is Drudge. It has become my favorite comedy site online. Every other day there's a SHOCK POLL !!! that comes out. First off if you get shocked that often you probably have a Neurological issue.

Secondly Drudge seems to scan all the polls (there's like at least 15 running now) desperately trying to find any good news, when he finds one with a little bit of good news (Trump GAINS, ONLY down by 3)  he'll post the SHOCK POLL. When the polling company drops Trump back again to minus 6, Drudge ignores that poll goes for another poll with good news with of course SHOCK POLL!!! (Trump GAINS down by 3!)  The poor saps who only reads Drudge must wonder how is Trump keep having SHOCK POLLS and gaining but staying in the same spot. Is Trump a dog chasing his tail?

Speaking of polls, the craziest thing I reading on twitter now is that how Trump supporters don't believe in the traditional polls, that just for example the CNN 4-way race has Clinton 45%, Trump 37%, Johnson 9%, Stein 5% and it's fine if you think it's a little off (personally I think Trump number will be a couple of points higher). But these same people are passing around online polls that have Trump 70%, Stein 17%, Johnson 8%, Clinton 5% and bragging about it.

There's my example of how many Trump supporters are delusional and  insane. They brush away a traditional poll completely, but their counterargument is a poll that has Jill Stein having triple of votes of the Democratic party candidate? Do they have any idea how crazy that sounds.

Drudge just redirects and doesn't write the stories or does the polls (for the most part) but no surprise that Drudge would choose to show certain stories or pick polls any more than Hillary's media (PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Wash Po, etc) only focuses on positive polls for Hillary or Trump 'gaffs' and won't, usually, delve into the fixed DNC election or all of Hillary's corruption, lies, illegal operations with regard to emails and servers, and "pay for play" etc.  It is not, necessarily, that any of them are lying (though sometimes they are, I think it was NBC who blew up a truck for a fake story or something, as an example) but choosing WHAT story to publish and WHICH subjuct to push (or hide.) So Breitbart can find one of the countless examples of some illegal alien raping a kid or killing a mom in a DUI and NPR can find an example of an illegal who graduated first in her class and it going to do great things. Both things happen, the former more than the latter, but it is just a matter of deciding which story to push or publish. And that is based on ratings or on what politics you want to push.

The problem is people realize that places like Drudge or Breitbart lean right and/or libertarian, and so select their stories that way, but not that the other media does also and is pro big government (so pro-Clinton) because their corporate owners make much of their gains by regulatory capture and tax loopholes. And Hollywood at this point is primarily seems to be about "social justice" or sexual politics (to wit they make so many movies that lose money or simply make remakes that are "politically correct," which lose money. Yet in private make fun of Obama and his race etc.) Or in the case of PBS/NPR even get direct money (in addition to tax-free corporate and local donations) to promote their propaganda and 'spin.' (Having said that they have some good shows and music, especially locally.) And Clinton is the obvious one who wants to not only keep the status quo but to expand government regulation (which benefits donors,) increase taxes, and throw open the borders (more media markets, cheaper labor, and more opportunity/necessity for government programs and give-aways,) more wars, and just the same old, same old.

I still haven't put away my theory that Trump is working with Billary but if even half of what he says is true it will be a better situation than we have today or certainly under Shrillary! Anybody but her. (Though, maybe, it would be nice to just admit that the whole thing is fixed and sham because the populace might start to vote, serve on juries, run for local offices, or even revolt (non-violently, of course?)

[pyewacket]

What Donald Trump Gets Right

Given the caliber of personalities and ideas proffered in the 2016 presidential election season, it is not surprising that Donald Trump continuously occupies a space of apparent contradiction. His image is one that inspires sustained fascination and revulsion; his person has been called everything from a fascist to a RINO.

Beyond his image, his political stances â€" and more precisely, the ways he articulates them â€" have made it something of a sporting event to see just how quickly pundits can dismiss his views. But there are a few substantive issues Donald Trump understands better than any other candidate:

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/what-donald-trump-gets-right

[TigerLily]

Is CNN non-fringey & mainstream enough for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESUUhncaYk&ebc=ANyPxKp4R2cE35l9-06a0NLLqYOqZnSV2x9qDKqRMA2zF6GIhtaEWCBS3EXeIZJ1pBma0Bu7hdZh
But no; it's the other side who are the whacko nutjobs because they don't trust a media that is so obviously & admittedly biased.

Yes.  CNN is much better with factual reporting. What you posted is commentary. And I agree completely. Both candidates make news and are getting lots of air time on the news channels and "news" channels

[Jackstar]

Yes.  CNN is much better with factual reporting.

[GravitySucks]

Yes.  CNN is much better with factual reporting. What you posted is commentary. And I agree completely. Both candidates make news and are getting lots of air time on the news channels and "news" channels

I can't tell if you are trying to be serious or sarcastic.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W

[WildCard]

Remember that CIA guy that asked Art if he'd ever noticed how every airport plays CNN. (He said a lot of bullshit too. Lone gunman, CIA doesn't run narcotics,)

I can't tell if you are trying to be serious or sarcastic.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W

I don't know if this is an example of that though.

Couldn't I find the Reuters story on CNN? Probably couldn't find the CNN story on Reuters .

The Secret Service had enough class to say they didn't talk to him.
But c'mon, somebody with a badge talked to him. Nobody's that rich.

[albrecht]

Remember that CIA guy that asked Art if he'd ever noticed how every airport plays CNN. (He said a lot of bullshit too. Lone gunman, CIA doesn't run narcotics,)

I don't know if this is an example of that though.

Couldn't I find the Reuters story on CNN? Probably couldn't find the CNN story on Reuters .

The Secret Service had enough class to say they didn't talk to him.
But c'mon, somebody with a badge talked to him. Nobody's that rich.

They should be playing Bloomberg. He is another billionaire with a news service like Ted (I know Ted is out of CNN now but still.)

[Zetaspeak]

@ Albrecht, I will be the first to say mainstream media does a real piss poor job analyzing polls, but I don't think it has to do with bias, I just think the cable news (on the most part) want the best story. First they will priorities  their own polling (which is understandable business wise)but secondly they will try to say the best story, if most it looks like somebody will win by 4 they will desperately (no matter which side) focus on the polls that is closest to make it seem like a  horse race (happened the last two elections, especially 08 which was never that much in doubt after the recession hit). This election Trump seems to be so far behind (he seems around 6 back) it becomes impossible to nudge it to seem like it's a tie so they go the other way and and focus on the polls that are 8+ to make the story "Holy crap, Trump is being blown out, what will the Republicans do !" Again I don't think it's a bias thing, it's a story thing.

Now if Trump starts slowly improving his poll numbers and gets to lets say the 4 points behind Clinton, believe me (doing my Kaine Turmp impression lol) the media will quickly change to "the comeback story" and start acting like it's closer than it actually is.  Cable news like CNN have been desperate for the Trump turnaround. Every time he has a rally/press conference/ day that he doesn't  poop on himself, discussion of "Is he turning the page" "Is he being presidential" starts being discussed, than of course the next day he does something weird and they go back to talking about that.

I believe you believe there's a bias, I don't see it. The Bengazi stuff is all over the news, if you watch it you would think something like that never happens, it actually took a twitter meme for me to remember that during GWB there's been 13 embassy attacks with 60 killed. I never hear that being put into context with the Bengazi talk, is it bias or is it lazy? The Hillary email things, that' also been in the news, they went live to congress asking Hillary and others question about it, I think everybody knows about the story.

If rightwingers think there's Hillary stories not being talked about, believe me the same frustration comes with left wingers. The story I mentioned a day back about Trump donation to FLA AG and than charges against him halted in Florida, I haven't seen that connection done at all much. The sexual accusations he's facing, I haven't heard that even hinted in the mainstream media, they are not even touching. Even some court transcripts from the Trump U case, sure they are in written form only, but the media never go into detail of what's in those (I heard some juicy stuff in there) I think mainstream media is like a referee and fans of both sides complain they are harsh enough on the other side.

[WOTR]

They should be playing Bloomberg. He is another billionaire with a news service like Ted (I know Ted is out of CNN now but still.)

I thought that being a billionaire was the only qualification necessary for any job... Informing the people, deciding for the people, leading the people...

[albrecht]

@ Albrecht, I will be the first to say mainstream media does a real piss poor job analyzing polls, but I don't think it has to do with bias, I just think the cable news (on the most part) want the best story. First they will priorities  their own polling (which is understandable business wise)but secondly they will try to say the best story, if most it looks like somebody will win by 4 they will desperately (no matter which side) focus on the polls that is closest to make it seem like a  horse race (happened the last two elections, especially 08 which was never that much in doubt after the recession hit). This election Trump seems to be so far behind (he seems around 6 back) it becomes impossible to nudge it to seem like it's a tie so they go the other way and and focus on the polls that are 8+ to make the story "Holy crap, Trump is being blown out, what will the Republicans do !" Again I don't think it's a bias thing, it's a story thing.

Now if Trump starts slowly improving his poll numbers and gets to lets say the 4 points behind Clinton, believe me (doing my Kaine Turmp impression lol) the media will quickly change to "the comeback story" and start acting like it's closer than it actually is.  Cable news like CNN have been desperate for the Trump turnaround. Every time he has a rally/press conference/ day that he doesn't  poop on himself, discussion of "Is he turning the page" "Is he being presidential" starts being discussed, than of course the next day he does something weird and they go back to talking about that.

I believe you believe there's a bias, I don't see it. The Bengazi stuff is all over the news, if you watch it you would think something like that never happens, it actually took a twitter meme for me to remember that during GWB there's been 13 embassy attacks with 60 killed. I never hear that being put into context with the Bengazi talk, is it bias or is it lazy? The Hillary email things, that' also been in the news, they went live to congress asking Hillary and others question about it, I think everybody knows about the story.

If rightwingers think there's Hillary stories not being talked about, believe me the same frustration comes with left wingers. The story I mentioned a day back about Trump donation to FLA AG and than charges against him halted in Florida, I haven't seen that connection done at all much. The sexual accusations he's facing, I haven't heard that even hinted in the mainstream media, they are not even touching. Even some court transcripts from the Trump U case, sure they are in written form only, but the media never go into detail of what's in those (I heard some juicy stuff in there) I think mainstream media is like a referee and fans of both sides complain they are harsh enough on the other side.

If one looks at the guest and experts and choices of stories you will see a clear bias towards the big government choice, Billlary, (because their corporate ownership and general "useful idiots" or whatever bias.) Some good undercover NPR tapes awhile back and stuff one can catch on sat feeds before they go "live" proved it, besides all the email dumps and people like Wash Post, just to use one example. Medal Of Honor, covering up LBJ's guy 'caught in a bathroom', etc) The mainstream media is often like a referee at a WWF match. It is entertainment, for us. And with a fixed outcome, a "narrative" (ps they, and the government even CALL people "actors" and "control the narrative" in their public press releases and analysis!) I'm NOT saying CT and things not real but the CHOICE of what to cover (and how to do so) and TO WHOM to focus attention. The balance is clearly, for several reasons, on the big government, pro-war, pro-open-borders, and pro-globalist (versus local or democratic ideas or government.) Because more market share, and more regulatory capture and laws for their interests. One only needs to look at Arkansas and how the Clintons "operated" and think? We want THAT for the WORLD???

ps: recall about polls. Sorry, that was your original comment/reply. Don't believe most of them, in general. Too much push polls, selective (calling people on land lines, too little numbers (I know, I know staticians say that can work,) and the general (especially in the Obamaland charged atmosphere- not like, but getting close in some cities/people- when his BLM etc rioting is anyone going to answer honestly?) Frankly I've gotten actually a few calls recently (about local issues) but normally don't answer because when I do it is:
1) too long
2) the people are almost incoherent (not foreign but speaking from screen script and seem illiterate
3) when I do take them I always lie, even for the non-political like tv or radio survey (hey got a dollar for saying I only listen to pirate radio station, Pacifica, Infowars, and NPR! Some years ago.)

[albrecht]

I thought that being a billionaire was the only qualification necessary for any job... Informing the people, deciding for the people, leading the people...

No, absolutely, No! The idea is one that they can promise to BECOME a billionaire and have dirt on them. They really don't want "one of us," because like anything there is random chance (insert military quotes here about battles) but security and fall-back positions and fall-guys.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

If Ted Turner wasn't still alive, CNN in its present form would have him spinning in his grave like a centrifuge. He originally envisioned it as a way to provide a 24/7 domestic and international news source that covered stories  the three network newscasts and daily papers didn't have space for.  It was also an idealistic, unselfish business decision, because it cost him a tremendous amount of money to start it, and he wasn't concerned about it being profitable.  If he were still in charge, Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger would be working as birthday party clowns, and the shameless, clueless, consistently wrong politico-media celebrity hacks and has-beens who have comprised "the best political team on television" for the past two fucking decades would have been banished long ago to the Island of Misfit Pundits and forced to collect seagull guano until they dropped dead in their tracks. Don't get me started.

[=Schlyder=]

If Ted Turner wasn't still alive, CNN in its present form would have him spinning in his grave like a centrifuge. He originally envisioned it as a way to provide a 24/7 domestic and international news source that covered stories  the three network newscasts and daily papers didn't have space for.  It was also an idealistic, unselfish business decision, because it cost him a tremendous amount of money to start it, and he wasn't concerned about it being profitable.  If he were still in charge, Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger would be working as birthday party clowns, and the shameless, clueless, consistently wrong politico-media celebrity hacks and has-beens who have comprised "the best political team on television" for the past two fucking decades would have been banished long ago to the Island of Misfit Pundits and forced to collect seagull guano until they dropped dead in their tracks. Don't get me started.

LOL yes .. ^ this

[Jackstar]

Don't get me started.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I agree with that sentiment in theory, because it would most likely reduce the level of human misery by about 94.9 percent, but I'm not in favor of exterminating several billion people just to find out, and I doubt Ted Turner is, either.  I know how much you enjoy raining on parades, you loveable scamp, but this one isn't worth your time and effort.  Ted Turner has said a lot of nutty things, but cherry picking his quotes out of context only tarnishes the brand you've worked so hard to establish.

[TigerLily]

I can't tell if you are trying to be serious or sarcastic.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W

Did you read my prior post? I was comparing the level of factual reporting between breitbart and CNN.

[Jackstar]

Did you read my prior post? I was comparing the level of factual reporting between breitbart and CNN.

You're adorable.

[Jackstar]

(((I agree with that sentiment in theory,)))

FTFY

[Jackstar]

the brand you've worked so hard to establish.

[TigerLily]

Did you read my prior post? I was comparing the level of factual reporting between breitbart and CNN.

Hey Gravity

I'm not a CNN apologist. I seldom watch CNN. But in general I am comfortable with their news reporting.  To parse the statements closer:

(CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

Reuters
A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

CNN said an unnamed Secret Service official. Reuters an unnamed federal official.  Same or different sources?  CNN specified unclear at what level of Trump staff was talked to.  Reuters specified only no formal discussion.  Both reports could be factual. Nothing egregious in either report.  Especially compared to breitbart reports I cited

[TigerLily]

You're adorable.

Grow up

[Jackstar]

But in general I am comfortable with their news reporting. 

Wow, cool. Can I go down on you?  I brushed my teeth last month, sometime.

[Jackstar]

Grow up

Too late, Chica. Far too late.

[TigerLily]

Wow, cool. Can I go down on you?  I brushed my teeth last month, sometime.

Ick. Now I have to brush my teeth since the thought made me vomit

[Jackstar]

Now I have to brush my teeth

My work here is done.

[GravitySucks]

Did you read my prior post? I was comparing the level of factual reporting between breitbart and CNN.

I have found that about half of the articles on Breitbart are click bait with misleading or exaggerated headlines. There are a few contributors to the website that I trust, others I ignore.

I very seldom click on a CNN link. The last time I thought they provided good, solid news coverage was in the first Gulf War.

Right now I don't trust any news outlet to provide unbiased, factual, investigative journalism. I do believe both CNN and MSNBC are among the worst of the worst as far as being tools of the DNC.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

[=Schlyder=]

NBC Senior Deputy Political Editor Mark Murray is married to Obama appointee Sasha Johnson (who also worked for CNN), who is chief of staff at the FAA.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and is an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama's Deputy Press Secretary
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama's Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

Associated but not related:

ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s White House Communications Director and press secretary
PBS Chief of Staff Julie Anbender, Clinton’s Deputy Director of OPA and DOJ
Comcast-ABC Senior VP, Government Affairs Meredith Baker, Bush’s and Obama’s Commissioner, FCC
CNN News correspondent, Yul Kwon, Obama’s Deputy Chief CGAB, FCC
PBS Host, Yul Kwon, Obama’s Deputy Chief CGAB, FCC
CNN Department Assignment Manager, Joe Lockhart, Clinton’s Press Secretary
CBS VP, Corporate Communications, Lisa Caputo, Clinton’s Press Secretary, First Lady’s Office.

I can see why Leftards claim Brietbart doesn't have credibility..... they have no one on staff who works for the Democrats.

[Zetaspeak]

I have found that about half of the articles on Breitbart are click bait with misleading or exaggerated headlines. There are a few contributors to the website that I trust, others I ignore.

I very seldom click on a CNN link. The last time I thought they provided good, solid news coverage was in the first Gulf War.

Right now I don't trust any news outlet to provide unbiased, factual, investigative journalism. I do believe both CNN and MSNBC are among the worst of the worst as far as being tools of the DNC.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

That is deplorable, where would they ever get an idea like that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkFU4MtubU

[TigerLily]

I have found that about half of the articles on Breitbart are click bait with misleading or exaggerated headlines. There are a few contributors to the website that I trust, others I ignore.

I very seldom click on a CNN link. The last time I thought they provided good, solid news coverage was in the first Gulf War.

Right now I don't trust any news outlet to provide unbiased, factual, investigative journalism. I do believe both CNN and MSNBC are among the worst of the worst as far as being tools of the DNC.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

At least that "Fair and Balanced" channel doesn't have any agenda.  And yes, this time it is sarcasm