Nothing more than biased media pushing a false narrative causing division.

Russia involvement in the USA election and Russians and Trump working together to win the election are two different things.

Russia was involvement with the election. Putin despised Clinton.

The Clinton election was to be a landslide in the eyes of the Democratic party and its biased media. They held this believe up until 9pm ish election night when everything started to fall apart.
They were dead wrong, shocked to the core and befuddled. Weeping and gnashing of teeth began and a Scapegoat was needed.

A quick blame of why Hillary did not win had be be made.


Russian in bed with Trump was a convenient story invented to hide the truth that Hillary ran a bad election campaign.

The firing of Comey was a shock. But the left also wanted him gone. Careful what you wish for.

This is just a continuation of the Anti Trump story line that was the media have pushed from day 1.

Russia did not favor Trump they just hated Clinton more.

USA meddles in other countries elections also.Obama meddled in the Israeli elections. It happens.

They are not me me team. I'm not a democrat.
Faux is so far beyond biased that, for over a decade, it's repeatedly been proven that watching Faux makes you LESS informed.
CNN is far from perfect, but Fox is the grand champion of fake scandals....birth certificate, Vince Foster, WMDs, Benghazi, .....nothing else need be said.
If he ran as a democrat, he would probably have been screwed just as hard or harder than Sanders, he would absolutely not have won, democrats don't believe any insane thing their leader tells them like republicans will, because democrats are more likely to be college educated (22% more) so they know better.

I lost before the election started when Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

Trump bashing will go on for his lifetime, he has ensured it with his bat shit crazy rhetoric. You might note that Faux was leading the charge against him, calling him an idiot, a liar, and completely unqualified to hold office until it started looking like he would win, then they changed their tune.

Fake news and biased media are FAR worse from the republicans, just look at the myriad of fake stories about Clinton in the last 6 months, then compare with the fake Trump stories, and there's no comparison, no one has accused him of running child slavery rings, or of murdering numerous close allies over some made up secrets, or of intentionally abandoning diplomats and military personell in hostile foreign countries, but Clinton has dealt with fake news since the 90's (dealt with it poorly, granted).

I am adult, Bob. Ask your president elect to grow up, he won the electoral college (not the electorate by 3 million votes though) but he's still acting like a spoiled 2 year old.

Edit: You might notice that the story that set Trump, and therefore you, off was NOT a fake story, it was a piece about a real report on what MAY or may not be a fake accusation about a foreign government having blackmailed the president elect (that they helped get elected), a report produced by the intelligence community for, and given to Trump (who may well be the one that leaked it, in order to distract from it with his outrage, knowing it would come out eventually). Maybe that's a good reason a president elect might want to not throw a tantrum at the intelligence community, they can destroy him with no effort if they choose just by reporting claims they've heard....like he does. Not good....sad.

Crooked Biased Media.

Biased media is CNN, MSNBC, ABC and the left leaning media.

And they are left leaning and cover for Democrats and damn near every opportunity.

Why? Because of their role model status for many people? So the government, biased media and other corrupt people can indoctrinate people by spewing out bullshit for decades, effectively producing blind drones, but celebrities are not allowed to act as a (albeit very weak) counterweight?

I still find it telling that out of all the "biased" media, only Fox ever went to court for the right to lie...and to fire any employee who refused to report those lies.

Matter of fact, that's more than just "telling"...that's game, set, and match. If you accept anything Fox says as truthful, you're an idiot.

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

>>> As I reply in order.

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

>>> The mainstream media has done a far better job creating class resentment, than the handful of conservative commentators have stoking "anti-black resentment", which even if there is such a thing, is dwarfed by anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-big government sentiment.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

>>> Based on the government school education and biased media of the past 50 years, a rational, fact-filled discussion on identifying racism' is just not possible. There's a lot of money in playing the victim. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

>>> The 1% is greedy? Compared to whom? Aren't Black professional athletes and entertainers in the 1%?

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

>>> We have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts, and the FACT is that compared to their percentage of the population, Black males commit far more crimes compared to a similar percentage of Whites. That the libmedia covers up these facts isn't doing anybody any favors.
Where were these unflattering facts about Whites? Besides Ron Paul newsletters?

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness.

>>> But the response would be far different if the racial roles were reversed, wouldn't you say?

What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?

>>> Of course not. But even calling those dummies who stayed to listen to that guy 'dummies' would be met with cries of racism.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

>>> Ron Paul isn't endorsing racial discrimination. Isn't it odd that before the Civil Rights Movement, there had to be laws in place to ENFORCE segregation?

>>> To me, Dr. Paul's criticism about the abuses of power wrought by expanded government is valid.

As I posited earlier to Net, do you believe the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?











>> ^longde:

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

Now THAT is true.

Seriously though - I can't think of a single person in the GOP of any note that is a "birther" in the sense that they don't think Obama was born in Hawaii. So far it seems to me that the cuckoo far-left fringe and their media shills (MSNBC) are far more obsessed with this issue than anyone on the right. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NTY, AP, et al are running 'birther' stories at a 4 to 1 ratio compared to FOX News. People that are whining "Let it go!" should be directing their venom at the left wing media complex, not the birthers.

But of course the neo-lib media won't let it go because it gives them a way to do what they do best... That is to deliberately screw up terminology, perception, and language in order to paint the sins of a tiny fringe with a big fat brush onto anyone they don't like. Now all the liberally biased media outlets are literally screaming like frothing lunatics that anyone who wants to see 'records' is a racist/bigot.

Bullcrap. There are people who want to see Obama's records. There is NOTHING WRONG with that. Any person who runs for ANY public office from Dogcatcher to President should be willing and able to supply any and all records on request. That is not a big deal. Just because people want to see Obama's records doesn't make them either 'birthers' or racists. That's just a load of garbage that neo-lib left wing propogandists are screaming loudly and often in the plaintive, desperate hope that the stupid and inattentive will believe it.

But reality check time. Obama isn't the first President who had this issue swirling around him. Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, and John McCain just a few who have had to produce records about thier births to settle controversies. And they're all WHITE guys. So please - none of this BULLCRAP that Obama is some sort of innocent, unique victim of racism over this birth certificate issue. Give me a break. What a steaming pile of hotspur. The whole issue wasn't even STARTED by the GOP. Hillary Clinton's campaign was the first group to bring this all up.

I'm not so sure it's equal, but assigning blame isn't the most productive outcome here. Hopefully this event will moderate the rhetoric on all sides going forward.

I've seen both sides, and yes it is equal. There is a ton of left-wing hate speech that is never focused on by the media. The media CHOOSES not to focus on it, but it is still there - consistent and constant. Media tends to ignore sleaze which they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they're hypersensitive to sleaze they oppose. The media decided that "right wing hate" was to blame before the smoke even cleared and so that's how they're going to discuss the story despite the evidence piling up that the lunatic was a neolib nut.

I do not believe this event will moderate jack-diddly-squat-doodle in terms of political rhetoric because the blame game being played is not taking place with a neutral "let's all step back" attitude. The blame game is ideologically motivated, biased, slanted, one-sided, and taking place 100% from the perspective of "left is fine; right is evil..."

That sort of biased slant is not going to calm people down. It is make people who are conservative even more upset. Bill Clinton pulled the same stunt in 1995. The right mostly ignored it. But they piled on, and conservatives became associated with compounds and crazies as a media default. The right learned a lesson that they can't just ignore it when the political left in concert with a left-biased media manufactures a lie.

So when overnight there are literally dozens of hit peices blaming this tragedy on Palin, the Tea Party, and conservative talk radio? Well, naturally the right is going to respond. I very much doubt the two-way "yes you did - no we didn't" discourse is going to soften the rhetoric.

What WOULD calm people down is if the media and politicians stopped trying to cast this story in such a way as to blame only their opponents. I put the odds of that happening at just about 0%. The political world is addicted to slash and burn hostility, and the media can't stop itself from slanting the news to save its own life because that's just what they've done for decades and they don't even know how to just report without editorializing anymore.

It is indeed a lamentable plight. But Gaza is controlled by Hamas - an ultra-violent terrorist organization that openly uses deadly force and refuses to acknowledge Isreal as a state. Isreal just might have a good reason to want to blockade such a violent organization.

Y'think? Isreal started building walls in the mid-90s due to spates of vehicle bombings, suicide bombings, and other atrocities. The walls were effective and by the mid-00s had reduced terror attacks to historic lows. Before the walls, Gaza rocket attacks were crude. In 2006 after the walls went up all of a sudden MAGICALLY the Palestinians started getting long-range rockets. So Isreal blockaded Gaza to keep Hamas from getting these long-range weapons. Gawlee Sgt. Carter! The long-range attacks went down to a trickle.

Quite clearly the Isreali policies are EFFECTIVE at providing security to Isreal at the cost of decreased living standards in Palestine. There is a simple, obvious solution here... Arabs & Muslims need to take strong action to control their own people and remove Isreal's need for security actions.

I won't hold my breath... As long as Arab/Muslim violence is justifed by biased media coverage then nothing will ever change. This is exemplified by things like this video, the news media portrayal of the "violence flotilla", and crones like Helen Thomas. Good riddance to bad rubbish with that particular specimen getting a stake driven through her anti-semitic heart. Senility? Alzheimer's? Dementia? Who knows what finally gave us this peek at her true heart. But the same sentiment of hatred exists more cleverly wrapped in the bulk of the leftist news media.

Fish: "What water?"

Liberal: "What biased media?"

Summary execution would have made all this liberal-biased-media whining go away. Lack of foresight on the feds part.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

I don't set out to control your emotions, nor do I want to. Please continue to learn.

----

With the Scamulus, we've just watched Obama and Friends, with the collusion of 3 traitor Repubicans, pull off the greatest generational theft in the history of the world.

Never before have so many government crooks simultaneously proven they have no F**KING idea what they're doing (economy) yet know EXACTLY what they're doing (downgrading America from free nation to socialist outhouse).

Perhaps the part that angers people like QM is that there seems to be many people who agree with Obama's policies simply because he is a very powerful and iconic public figure. In essence, they agree with Obama because they feel he is a good guy, rather than agreeing with him because his policies match theirs. In a similar sense, QM believes that people disagreed with Bush solely because they didn't like him as a person.

Obama is "a very powerful and iconic public figure" because that's the way he's portrayed by--forgive the vulgarity--fawning, suck-d**ck, liberally-biased media. He's had an easy time of it, but anyone paying attention knows that America's enemies are not impressed. Neither are investors.

Likewise, Bush, a flawed human being, was hated by the left for what he stood for before ever assuming office. What I never hear any liberal admit, is that every year Bush fully-funded all ineffectual liberal government programs, to the point Obama may have needed the Scamulus just to prove he could still outspend even a half-conservative.

Any even partially-objective observers, if they're being honest, cannot say that both men have received equal time and treatment by the media.

From the video's description: "Why is the American (and Canadian) media so biased in the coverage of the Israeli - Palestine conflict?"

This video doesn't apply as much to Canada. There's some media bias up here, but not to the same degree and not for the same reasons.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is owned and operated by the Canadian government. Since we don't heavily fund Israel (that I'm aware of), the lobbying pressure on our government would likely be less. Not sure if Canada's news should be lumped into the same broken and biased media engine as what's behind this. (Of course, this doesn't include the Canadians who watch American TV for their news.)

Upvote for an informative video.