DescentBB

Lothar wrote:If you want to make claims about what he actually means, you have to take responsibility as a listener.

It takes two people to communicate. He still has to take responsibility for being a terrible speaker. I'm not about to make excuses for someone who doesn't make the effort to speak intelligently.

Here's the last I'll say: If Hillary had said these exact same words, she would have been lauded by the media for standing up for women's rights.

snoopy wrote:Here's the last I'll say: If Hillary had said these exact same words, she would have been lauded by the media for standing up for women's rights.

Oh right, "liberal media" fantasy again. Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, Trump gets the attention he deserves?

edited in light of new information: Trump isn't known for not spazzing out if he doesn't get his way.

He's trying to sell himself to the country. It's too bad that he's doing a terrible job of it right now.

vision wrote: Oh right, "liberal media" fantasy again.

If you didn't see the bias on sickeningly display during the last debate, then you are not as observant as you make yourself out to be

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: Oh right, "liberal media" fantasy again.

If you didn't see the bias on sickeningly display during the last debate, then you are not as observant as you make yourself out to be

I didn't watch, but that's still not proof. The "news" corporations are business. Their bias is money, and controversy makes money.

That said, I don't see any real value to the debate format. It is a terrible way to judge elect-ability and I think it should be abandoned (then the imaginary liberal media bias can be solved).

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/med ... sidential/

The problem here is when you have the news media donating to political candidates, then you have them with a vested interest. At that point, shaping the news to flatter their candidate and worse yet the air time will not be considered a "donation". One of the reasons I pulled my cable cord.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: Oh right, "liberal media" fantasy again.

If you didn't see the bias on sickeningly display during the last debate, then you are not as observant as you make yourself out to be

oh, screaming 'liberal biased media' sells well to the rubes, but what you saw was a minor network aiming for 'controversy'. Remember Barnums adage about no such thing as bad publicity. Overall, the mass media ALL have balances, but, as noted, are business entities, selling to a target audience. Thus, one can EASILY find plenty of right wing bias, along with left wing bias out before the public, and the GOP whining rings VERY hollow. By the way, they CHOSE CNBC, and were involved up to the panel selection, so Priebus and others whining after the fact is dubious.

woodchip wrote:https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/med ... sidential/

The problem here is when you have the news media donating to political candidates, then you have them with a vested interest. At that point, shaping the news to flatter their candidate and worse yet the air time will not be considered a "donation". One of the reasons I pulled my cable cord.

agreed here, I still have my cable, though for college hockey coverage.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: Oh right, "liberal media" fantasy again.

If you didn't see the bias on sickeningly display during the last debate, then you are not as observant as you make yourself out to be

I didn't watch, but that's still not proof. The "news" corporations are business. Their bias is money, and controversy makes money.

If the news is a business (and CNN got there largest ever market share when the hosted the debate and charged up the wazoo for ad time) then CNBC shot the news business in the head as now the RNC has cancelled the next debate. Maybe the newsy's will finally understand that the voters that watch want substantive issues debated and not some sort of reality game show.

woodchip wrote:...CNBC shot the news business in the head...

Good. All the debates should be killed off because it's a terrible way to judge presidential candidates. I hope the Republican Party forces something better to happen. They will be martyrs.

bumpity bump for amusement only. Read some of the exchanges here, from last September, and feel free to comment.