Must hold liberal media accountable

[davecmarino]

Obama doubled the national debt of all previous presidents combined.

Because he inherited such a massive deficit. Almost the entire deficit was due to Bush wars and Bus tax cuts. The stimulus was chicken feed in comparison. And it's not possible to go cold turkey on spending without totally crashing the economy.

Math and economics not your strong point, eh?

Stop talking out your ass. Reagan was a fantastic President.

Except for the massive deficits, and the massive corruption, you mean.

Impressive, how clean the Obama admin has been. Not a single actual scandal. It's definitely the cleanest admin of our lifetimes. And you know Trump's admin will see corruption as a resume-builder. Trump is already plotting how to emulate his buddies Putin and the oligarchs, and loot billions out of the public coffers for himself. And you and all the Trump fans will be running cover for it, by auto-declaring that any report of the corruption is a liberal conspiracy, and by supporting Trump's attempts to intimidate the press.

You mean that Reagan didn't manipulate things so that his scandals were swept under the rug. His people were held accountable. There is no accountability under Obama as not only does his justice department not go after things like the IRS and VA scandals but they actually obstruct Congress from investigating also.

Obama is the least transparent and most corrupt President in recent history maybe all of history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

Because he inherited such a massive deficit. Almost the entire deficit was due to Bush wars and Bus tax cuts.

Another day, another lie by mamoose. Sweetie, the entire Bush debt was fully accounted for the day he stepped down as president. Obama was not held accountable for a single penny of Bush debt. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

The stimulus was chicken feed in comparison.

That's it? That's the best you've got to defend illegal, unconstitutional, reckless spending by Obama? Over a trillion dollars in one year alone! You've reached a new level of desperation.

And it's not possible to go cold turkey on spending without totally crashing the economy.

The federal government does not drive the U.S. economy sweetie. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

Impressive, how clean the Obama admin has been. Not a single actual scandal.

The Obama Administration was the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. Iran hostages. IRS/Lois Lerner. The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

 

[mamooth]

You mean that Reagan didn't manipulate things so that his scandals were swept under the rug. His people were held accountable.

So you're saying that around a hundred corruption convictions proves how clean the Reagan adminstration was. I suppose that makes sense, in your bizarro world.

That ended with Bush, of course. His admin gave a free pass to any and all Republican corruption. I especially like his attorneys scandal, which nobody was ever punished for. You know, when several lifelong republican DoJ attorneys testified that they had been fired because they disobeyed instructions to make up phony crimes to pin on Democrats. And Scooter Libby? Pardoned.

There is no accountability under Obama as not only does his justice department not go after things like the IRS and VA scandals but they actually obstruct Congress from investigating also.

So you're pretending the Republican investigations into every last detail that found nothing ... didn't happen. If you're that deep inside your delusion bubble, it's not possible to reason with you.

 

[mamooth]

Another day, another lie by mamoose. Sweetie, the entire Bush debt was fully accounted for the day he stepped down as president. Obama was not held accountable for a single penny of Bush debt. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

Having trouble with how deficit and debt relate, I see. I know, such advanced economics confuses the economic illiterates. Deficit causes debt. Obama inherited the Bush deficits, which caused the debt. Obama then proceeded to gradually eliminate the inherited deficits, because that's what Democrats do, reduce deficits. Do I need to go slower?

Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office

That's it? That's the best you've got to defend illegal, unconstitutional, reckless spending by Obama? Over a trillion dollars in one year alone! You've reached a new level of desperation.

"Unconstitutional"? Now you're completely off in lalaland. Again, I note one of your brazen double standards, the way you've never declared spending was "unconstitutional" under a Republican president. Are you now going to shriek that you did say such things, and then refuse to point out where?

Oh, reality is never kind to your fantasy economics. See that dark blue patch? That's Obama. The rest is Bush.

The federal government does not drive the U.S. economy sweetie. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

Nice strawman. "Drive"? No. "Influence"? Yes. Every economist besides a few cult libertarian cranks agrees with that. But you know better, right? To hell with evidence, you have the faith of a TrueBeliever.

The Obama Administration was the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. Iran hostages. IRS/Lois Lerner. The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

As those are all fake scandals, you only managed to put your pathologically corrupt partisan hack mindset on open display there. Heck, some of those are so off-the-rails, I've never even heard of them. They appear to exist only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. And, like all good conspiracy theorists, you'll tell us the lack of any evidence for the conspiracy proves the conspiracy is being covered up.

Face it. You're butthurt because, in comparison, you know Obama makes your side look like the corrupt scumbags that they are, not to mention look like the economic incompetents that they are. And we both know you'll be proudly running cover for Trump's corruption . I hope you don't embarrass yourself denying it. With all the other Trump-fans, you'll be screaming "LIBERAL MEDIA!" as soon as anyone even mentions that stealing billions from the treasury is not an ethical thing. Your masters appreciate your devoted service as Useful Idiot.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yea, If he wins, Trump will put all Democrats into reeducation camps the day after he is inaugurated.

Give me a break. The boogeyman so many of you have built Trump up to be is a bullshit narrative.

. Damn! We can't do that?

 

[davecmarino]

You mean that Reagan didn't manipulate things so that his scandals were swept under the rug. His people were held accountable.

So you're saying that around a hundred corruption convictions proves how clean the Reagan adminstration was. I suppose that makes sense, in your bizarro world.

That ended with Bush, of course. His admin gave a free pass to any and all Republican corruption. I especially like his attorneys scandal, which nobody was ever punished for. You know, when several lifelong republican DoJ attorneys testified that they had been fired because they disobeyed instructions to make up phony crimes to pin on Democrats. And Scooter Libby? Pardoned.

There is no accountability under Obama as not only does his justice department not go after things like the IRS and VA scandals but they actually obstruct Congress from investigating also.

So you're pretending the Republican investigations into every last detail that found nothing ... didn't happen. If you're that deep inside your delusion bubble, it's not possible to reason with you.

You just proved what I said. Reagan had accountability and everyone since has not. Thanks for proving my point.

Do you really think that Bush, Clinton, and Obama crime families have done anything good for America? Bush Sr brought in the NWO progressive bullshit and it has been the destruction of America. All lies from these crime families. Giving their friends a pass on their crimes against the American people.

If you had a brain, you would realize the opportunity that Trump represents to fix the problems in our government that has grown over the last 28 years. As imperfect as Trump is, he's miles better than another round of Clinton corruption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheDude]

If Trump wins this thing you can add blatant media corruption to the mix. Add to that we know they were in collusion with the democrat party, including the debates...........I say they can get fkd, and I hope they cook like Cooked Clinton if she loses this thing. Perhaps as a result we'll see at least a shed of integrity in DC and the liberal media.

Yes, this needs to change. Media coverage of this election was the most biased ever.

Not according to liberals.

 

[P@triot]

Another day, another lie by mamoose. Sweetie, the entire Bush debt was fully accounted for the day he stepped down as president. Obama was not held accountable for a single penny of Bush debt. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

Having trouble with how deficit and debt relate, I see. I know, such advanced economics confuses the economic illiterates. Deficit causes debt. Obama inherited the Bush deficits, which caused the debt. Obama then proceeded to gradually eliminate the inherited deficits, because that's what Democrats do, reduce deficits. Do I need to go slower?

Oh sweetie....you're dying a slow and ugly death here today. You're so angry over Hitlery getting her ass kicked that you can't even think straight. Deficits are simply the annual accumulations of the national debt. Ergo you cannot add to the national debt unless you have deficits. And Barack Obama added almost to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history did in 232 years.

Obama didn't "inherit" anything from Bush. Bush didn't build that stupid ass "stimulus" into his final budget. Obama went and spent that money on his own. Obama did the ignorant and illegal/unconstitutional "cash for clunkers". Obama handed Solynda half a billion dollars even though he already knew that they would still file for bankruptcy and close their doors.

You're having a really rough day sweetie

 

[P@triot]

"Unconstitutional"? Now you're completely off in lalaland. Again, I note one of your brazen double standards, the way you've never declared spending was "unconstitutional" under a Republican president. Are you now going to shriek that you did say such things, and then refuse to point out where?

Yes my dear....unconstitutional. As I already schooled you on yesterday, the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers. Spending tax payer's money on anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers is unconstitutional.

Now tell everyone again how providing multiple quotes from Thomas Jefferson explaining the General Welfare Clause is "cherry-picking" so we can all have a good laugh again.

 

[P@triot]

As those are all fake scandals

"Fake scandals"

Heck, some of those are so off-the-rails, I've never even heard of them.

The first honest thing you've ever said! Already Trump is having a positive effect on you! You're admitting that you're so ignorant of the facts, you've never even heard of the biggest scandals of the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration was the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. Iran hostages. IRS/Lois Lerner. The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. You're making yourself look like an unhinged lunatic here.

 

[FA_Q2]

It didn't work under Bush or Reagan. It just caused record deficits, which Obama did an admirable job of reducing...

Sweetie...Barack Obama added more to the national debt than any president in U.S. history. He almost added as much to the debt in 8 years as all presidents combined did in 232 years.

Can I call someone for you to get your meds refilled?

There are no meds that can pierce the 'everything Obama did was Bush's fault' mantra.

 

[FA_Q2]

We do hold the media accountable for getting Trump elected, being almost all of the national media was shilling for him the whole election season.

I imagine they're shocked. They thought they were just getting good ratings by shilling for him. Now it's starting to dawn on them what they've done. After all, der Fuerher has already stated he plans to shut down media outlets that criticize him. And, as illustrated by the OP, many of the Trump-fans would proudly back such censorship. Constitution? They don't care.

Shilling for Trump? You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Virtually ALL media coverage of Trump was massively negative. Every time you turned on the news you heard about how Trump simply could not win. Then you have the media helping Hillary CHEAT in a debate. More debate monitors that were utter garbage.

The media was openly shilling for Hillary everywhere except FOX. Denying that is pure blindness.

Depends what you mean by negative. Negative for who? It doesn't seem to have been negative for Trump, now does it? They reported everything Trump said. Trump spewed out negative stuff, so they reported on that.

No, it really does not. Playing word games with negative coverage does not change the fact that the coverage on Trump was massively negative.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We do hold the media accountable for getting Trump elected, being almost all of the national media was shilling for him the whole election season.

I imagine they're shocked. They thought they were just getting good ratings by shilling for him. Now it's starting to dawn on them what they've done. After all, der Fuerher has already stated he plans to shut down media outlets that criticize him. And, as illustrated by the OP, many of the Trump-fans would proudly back such censorship. Constitution? They don't care.

Shilling for Trump? You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Virtually ALL media coverage of Trump was massively negative. Every time you turned on the news you heard about how Trump simply could not win. Then you have the media helping Hillary CHEAT in a debate. More debate monitors that were utter garbage.

The media was openly shilling for Hillary everywhere except FOX. Denying that is pure blindness.

Depends what you mean by negative. Negative for who? It doesn't seem to have been negative for Trump, now does it? They reported everything Trump said. Trump spewed out negative stuff, so they reported on that.

No, it really does not. Playing word games with negative coverage does not change the fact that the coverage on Trump was massively negative.

Why should the media not say negative things about Trump? Like I said, Trump said negative things, then you accuse the media of being negative in reporting what he said. Why not blame Trump?

 

[paulitician]

CNN (Clinton News Network) did provide Clinton with questions before the debate. That has been proven. It's despicable. Credible American Journalism is dead. R.I.P.

 

[FA_Q2]

We do hold the media accountable for getting Trump elected, being almost all of the national media was shilling for him the whole election season.

I imagine they're shocked. They thought they were just getting good ratings by shilling for him. Now it's starting to dawn on them what they've done. After all, der Fuerher has already stated he plans to shut down media outlets that criticize him. And, as illustrated by the OP, many of the Trump-fans would proudly back such censorship. Constitution? They don't care.

Shilling for Trump? You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Virtually ALL media coverage of Trump was massively negative. Every time you turned on the news you heard about how Trump simply could not win. Then you have the media helping Hillary CHEAT in a debate. More debate monitors that were utter garbage.

The media was openly shilling for Hillary everywhere except FOX. Denying that is pure blindness.

Depends what you mean by negative. Negative for who? It doesn't seem to have been negative for Trump, now does it? They reported everything Trump said. Trump spewed out negative stuff, so they reported on that.

No, it really does not. Playing word games with negative coverage does not change the fact that the coverage on Trump was massively negative.

Why should the media not say negative things about Trump? Like I said, Trump said negative things, then you accuse the media of being negative in reporting what he said. Why not blame Trump?

I didn't say that they should not say negative things. I said that the negativity was massive.

Virtually everything said about Trump was insanely negative. Some of it bald faced lies, some of it true. Almost nothing was covered in a positive light weather or not it really was positive and his words were being twisted non-stop. Much more than Hillary. Most of the coverage over the last month was essentially about how it was almost impossible for Trump to win.

Much of the coverage NOW is bullshit editorial nonsense about Trump. Hell, I had to switch off PBS during the election and watch other networks because of the bald faced partisan commentary. PBS! That should not have been the case.

 

[mamooth]

Virtually everything said about Trump was insanely negative.

No, much of it was quite positive. In contrast, most of the things said about Clinton were much more negative. The media didn't spend a weeks breathlessly reporting on Trump's legal problems, even Trump has a lot of them, and they're actually real.

The media handed Trump the election. When one candidate mostly lies about everything, and one mostly tells the truth, and yet the public rates the liar much higher in trustworthiness, that's entirely the fault of the media. They just fell down on the job.

I mean, so what if the current president-elect had the Russians involved in his campaign, has massive financial ties to Russia, and refuses to show his finances? Minor stuff, the fact that a president might be owned by an enemy nation. Nobody should care about such trifles, so the media was right to completely ignore it. The important thing is EMAILS!

 

[FA_Q2]

Virtually everything said about Trump was insanely negative.

No, much of it was quite positive. In contrast, most of the things said about Clinton were much more negative. The media didn't spend a weeks breathlessly reporting on Trump's legal problems, even Trump has a lot of them, and they're actually real.

The media handed Trump the election. When one candidate mostly lies about everything, and one mostly tells the truth, and yet the public rates the liar much higher in trustworthiness, that's entirely the fault of the media. They just fell down on the job.

I mean, so what if the current president-elect had the Russians involved in his campaign, has massive financial ties to Russia, and refuses to show his finances? Minor stuff, the fact that a president might be owned by an enemy nation. Nobody should care about such trifles, so the media was right to completely ignore it. The important thing is EMAILS!

Your partisanship is showing, that is bald faced bullshit. Trump received massively negative news coverage where Clinton's coverage was MUCH more positive than his. Of note is that FOX was not actually the main source of positive reporting on Trump. FOX actually presented a higher percentage of positive coverage on Hillary than it did on Trump even though they had the worst tone out of all the news agencies in the study on her. Here is a snippet studied on the month of the conventions:

Trump:

Clinton:

News Coverage of the 2016 National Conventions: Negative News, Lacking Context - Shorenstein Center

Discounting the washington times who covered them both very negatively, Trumps BEST coverage did not even meet Clinton's WORST. The coverage was not even close.

 

[mamooth]

Logic fail. That's like saying the media during WWII was biased against Hitler because Hitler got worse press than Churchill.

Given what Trump was, his media coverage was glowing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Logic fail. That's like saying the media during WWII was biased against Hitler because Hitler got worse press than Churchill.

Given what Trump was, his media coverage was glowing.

So I give you facts and you return with a meaningless Hitler comparison.

We get it, you do not like Trump. That does not change the fact that he received massively negative coverage and Hillary did not. Your claim was flatly false.

 

[mamooth]

So I give you facts and you return with a meaningless Hitler comparison.

I didn't compare Trump to Hitler. Why are you saying I did? I made an analogy. Did something that simple go over your head?

We get it, you do not like Trump. That does not change the fact that he received massively negative coverage and Hillary did not. Your claim was flatly false.

My statement was absolutely true. Trump is a Constitution-raper, a pathological serial liar, an open suckup to racists, mentally unstable and a proud lifelong criminal, and the media whitewashed all of that for him. The fact that the media didn't completely whitewash his lifelong history of sexual assault doesn't mean they didn't whitewash the rest of his moral decrepitude.

You'd think you'd be more grateful to the American media for putting Trump in office.