At least 65 msm reporters were meeting or coordinating with Hillarys advisers

[frigidweirdo]

THE WIKILEAKS LIST: At Least 65 MSM Reporters Were Meeting with and/or Coordinating Offline with Top Hillary Advisors

Absolutely disgusting. Journalism doesn't exist anymore obviously.

Oh come off it. Journalism has ALWAYS been biased and the right has used the media as much as the left.

I mean, it's pretty naive of you to think this hasn't been going on.

Trump seems to be saying he's anti-establishment, but the problem isn't with the establishment, it's with the naivety and blindness of the voters who see whatever they're told to see. Now you're being told to see some of these problems, and all of a sudden you see. Next election you'll go back to being blind and not giving a damn if it helps "your guy".

Journalism hasn't been biased because REAL journalists were supposed to be impartial and report the news without propaganda. What we have now isn't news at all. It's a bunch of people who are willing to lie to you because they think their political beliefs are more important than the truth.

What's a "REAL journalist"? Last I looked journalists had to earn a living, which mean working for a company, which mean doing what they were told to do.

 

[MisterBeale]

Interesting. What do you suppose he will do about Aleppo?

I would prefer nothing. He won't win so it doesn't matter

What do you suppose Hillary will do about Aleppo?

Why does the U.S. need to do something about Aleppo?

Oh, I agree. That is what absolutely scares the shit out of me when Hillary gets elected.

Why did Iraq need to be invaded? That's what scares the shit out of me whenever the right are in charge of the armed forces. They have a tendency to go to big wars and create problems.

Not necessarily, bear in mind, Bush and Reagan tend to be anomalies.

A world war has begun. Break the silence.
A world war has begun. Break the silence.
"No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama."

 

[MisterBeale]

And yet, you are still dumb enough to vote for that awful woman, aren't you?

I voted this past weekend for Gary Johnson.

Interesting. What do you suppose he will do about Aleppo?

I would prefer nothing. He won't win so it doesn't matter

What do you suppose Hillary will do about Aleppo?

Draw another red line in the sand? It worked so well the first time...(eye roll)

I think after what happened with that last cease fire that was brokered, she has a tendency to be much more aggressive than Obama. If you follow what she lobbied the Obama administration to do, she is much more hawkish.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would prefer nothing. He won't win so it doesn't matter

What do you suppose Hillary will do about Aleppo?

Why does the U.S. need to do something about Aleppo?

Oh, I agree. That is what absolutely scares the shit out of me when Hillary gets elected.

Why did Iraq need to be invaded? That's what scares the shit out of me whenever the right are in charge of the armed forces. They have a tendency to go to big wars and create problems.

Not necessarily, bear in mind, Bush and Reagan tend to be anomalies.

A world war has begun. Break the silence.
A world war has begun. Break the silence.
"No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama."

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

Firstly there are wars and there are WARS. To judge which is which isn't necessarily easy. It might actually be easier to look at individual president and why fighting broke, and the intensity of the fight, as clearly the bombing of Libya compared to the full blown invasion of Iraq are clearly two different things.

But it's funny you say Bush and Reagan are anomalies, seeing as they're the only two Republican president to have served two terms in the last 4 decades.

Obama has attempted to pull back from fighting wars. He was wrong to go into Libya but did so under pressure from McCain and the right in the US, and because the British and French took the lead. Other issues, like ISIS, Afghanistan and Pakistan were inherited from he predecessor.

Bush will probably go down as one of the worst presidents for his full blown invasion of Iraq. Plus Afghanistan and then you have a massive re-militarization from the right.

Clinton took part in campaigns in Kosovo, Serbia, Somalia, Haiti, but these weren't offensive, mostly defending those who needed defending, or trying to solve unsolvable problems.

Bush snr went to war in Kuwait, but again, defensive.

Reagan was Panama, Grenada, with Lebanon in the mix. Hardly peaceful.

So going back to the beginning of the 1980s, the only Presidents who have invaded were Republican, and that was 2 out of 3, while the two Democrats didn't invade at all.

Carter didn't do much, aside from supporting Pol Pot (I mean, seriously?), and there was some defensive military action in Zaire.

Then we're down to Vietnam and Kennedy, yes, Kennedy went in and basically invaded Vietnam, Johnson was merely carrying it on as was Nixon. It was America's worst hour and all sides seemed to be in on it.

Then there was Korea, another Cold War affair.

But in the post Cold War era, I don't see Democrats going to offensive war. US foreign policy has been fucked up for a long time, and it doesn't require a party affiliation to carry on fucking it up. The right have increased military spending in recent years after the decline of the 1990s, I don't think it was unintentional, they knew what they were doing, and I believe the rise of ISIS wasn't unintentional either. The right wanted it.

 

[Oldstyle]

THE WIKILEAKS LIST: At Least 65 MSM Reporters Were Meeting with and/or Coordinating Offline with Top Hillary Advisors

Absolutely disgusting. Journalism doesn't exist anymore obviously.

Oh come off it. Journalism has ALWAYS been biased and the right has used the media as much as the left.

I mean, it's pretty naive of you to think this hasn't been going on.

Trump seems to be saying he's anti-establishment, but the problem isn't with the establishment, it's with the naivety and blindness of the voters who see whatever they're told to see. Now you're being told to see some of these problems, and all of a sudden you see. Next election you'll go back to being blind and not giving a damn if it helps "your guy".

Journalism hasn't been biased because REAL journalists were supposed to be impartial and report the news without propaganda. What we have now isn't news at all. It's a bunch of people who are willing to lie to you because they think their political beliefs are more important than the truth.

What's a "REAL journalist"? Last I looked journalists had to earn a living, which mean working for a company, which mean doing what they were told to do.

What's a REAL journalist? For starters it's someone who puts the truth first. It's someone who doesn't do what they're "told to do".

 

[frigidweirdo]

THE WIKILEAKS LIST: At Least 65 MSM Reporters Were Meeting with and/or Coordinating Offline with Top Hillary Advisors

Absolutely disgusting. Journalism doesn't exist anymore obviously.

Oh come off it. Journalism has ALWAYS been biased and the right has used the media as much as the left.

I mean, it's pretty naive of you to think this hasn't been going on.

Trump seems to be saying he's anti-establishment, but the problem isn't with the establishment, it's with the naivety and blindness of the voters who see whatever they're told to see. Now you're being told to see some of these problems, and all of a sudden you see. Next election you'll go back to being blind and not giving a damn if it helps "your guy".

Journalism hasn't been biased because REAL journalists were supposed to be impartial and report the news without propaganda. What we have now isn't news at all. It's a bunch of people who are willing to lie to you because they think their political beliefs are more important than the truth.

What's a "REAL journalist"? Last I looked journalists had to earn a living, which mean working for a company, which mean doing what they were told to do.

What's a REAL journalist? For starters it's someone who puts the truth first. It's someone who doesn't do what they're "told to do".

Yeah, well... good luck with that one then... Journalists generally find that putting food on the table comes first. If they're lucky enough to be able to say what they like, then great, but they still need to live.