Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Dr. Keith]

So he gets to spout garbage as fact, claim an opponent doesn't know anything, insult, then hide and refuse to debate? Seems very on topic.

I rarely agree with you, but yes these things do seem on topic in a Trump thread.

 

[Babbylonian]

I think he was referring to Cuban, not Trump. Still not everyone likes him, but most people do.

Yeah, I'm not in Dallas of course but I'm sure not jumping on the Mark Cuban fan train just because he's on the right (left) side of the election. Mostly, I consider Cuban a douche.

 

[Upchurch]

I think he was referring to Cuban, not Trump. Still not everyone likes him, but most people do.

Ah.

It seems obvious now, in retrospect.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Ah.

It seems obvious now, in retrospect.

That kid around your neck may be reducing blood flow. Just saying.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yeah, I'm not in Dallas of course but I'm sure not jumping on the Mark Cuban fan train just because he's on the right (left) side of the election. Mostly, I consider Cuban a douche.

He can be a douche. He can also be quite funny and he can do a lot of good things in the community. He is a character and probably on net good for the city, at the very least to balance out Jerry Jones, but not universally loved.

 

[Donal]

Yeah, it's editorializing. If they want to clarify something, it's easy to alter the format to allow for that in a way that doesn't make the presenter the arbiter of fact versus fiction.

They are not the arbiter of fact versus fiction, but why should a person spouting total BS be given the same legitimacy as someone relaying verifiable facts?

However, the idea that, again, a "straight" news program (one or two people reading news stories and showing video clips) should have the presenter(s) commenting on the stories they're presenting is silly when, again, there are plenty of formats and avenues for such commentary.

They don't need much commentary to point out "this statement has been proven incorrect". If the news is meant to inform us, then shouldn't the information be accurate?

"Here's what Presidential Candidate Donald Trump said today in a speech given in Dallas, Texas."
<play video>
"In Hoboken, New Jersey, Hillary Clinton gave a speech on health care."
<play video>
"In other news..."

No, if either of them is repeating something that has been debunked, the reader should mention that.

There is nothing wrong with presenting the news like that. Inserting anything else is for another kind of show.

There is because it gives an air of legitimacy to things like birtherism. "Well, they reported it on the news, so there must be something to it."

 

[Cain]

Mark Cuban would give anyone douche chills. What kind of grown man dyes his hair? But he did have a good Trump take-down, no doubt gifted to him from one of Stephen Colbert's writers: "Donald, the only way you're worth ten billion dollars is if I paid you nine-and-a-half billion to wash. my. balls."

 

[logger]

2a. He will take "credit" for making President Obama show his birth certificate, proving how tough a negotiator Trump is.

Lol

Well, that is true. He did cause Obama to release it.

 

[logger]

5. He will become angry when the press points out that he was championing birtherism as late as 2015.

But will they point out, hillary was the one who found the opposition research on it?

 

[logger]

How do you feel about Trump folding on this issue so quickly?

I don't know what he said about it. My comment was how libs feel the need to use government to nanny everyone. I'm not saying libs don't need that kind of ass wiping, clearly they do.

 

[logger]

Guess who introduced Donald at today's farce?











A Birther!



There's the nudge nudge wink wink his racist adherents needed.

Lol

Never has race been mentioned, but many brain dead libs need that narrative, why, because they're corrupt dishonest people and lies are the only way they can win.

 

[logger]

As a quick reminder, Obama released his birth certificate in June 2008. After that, birtherism went from racist conspiracy theory to delusional racist conspiracy theory.

It's far too late for Trump to apologize as far as his campaign goes - and he did not apologize anyway.

Yes, I continually here this from the industry, lying to the people they say they represent. Money does funny things to people.

 

[Babbylonian]

He can be a douche. He can also be quite funny and he can do a lot of good things in the community.

I agree with both. At the very least, he generally seems earnest, which is an achievement when it comes to loud-mouthed billionaires. Me not liking him certainly doesn't mean that he's a bad person; I don't really like Bill Gates either but it seems impossible to question that at the end of the day he too is a good person.

 

[logger]

And they will pay the price if Donald wins and then uses the power of the White House to get even with the media now that he feels he no longer needs them.

Not just the media will get what's coming to them. We'll be able to use the IRS and justice department and the FBI. It will be a hoot.

 

[logger]

I like this guy already.

Why? Because he's too much of a coward that he needs these ground rules?

 

[CapelDodger]

Why? Because he's too much of a coward that he needs these ground rules?

Trump has nobody to help him (and no earpiece) and he talks about his policies and how he will implement them.

What kind of coward would turn that opportunity down? Trump, of course. He's got the backbone of a sea-anenome.

 

[CapelDodger]

But will they point out, hillary was the one who found the opposition research on it?

That monkey on your back has taken over your brain.

 

[Shalamar]

Not just the media will get what's coming to them. We'll be able to use the IRS and justice department and the FBI. It will be a hoot.

Lets see: We have suppression of freedom of speech, suppression of freedom of the Press, and .. wait for it.. commingling of Government and Business! (Using the IRS, Justice Department, and the FBI to attack 'the media')

We have the desire for fascism! It's Conservatopia! One party conservative state at it's greatest desire!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it the BBCs job to 'rebut' him?

Yes. It is the job of the news media not to broadcast known falsehoods without comment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll take a stab and say no.

There seems to be a growing feeling that news presenters should be commenting on every piece of news that they report or show. I agree with your implication that this is not true unless it's a news commentary program and/or they're talking to "experts." In fact, constant commentary is exactly what we shouldn't want in a straight news program, and I say this whether the presenter is someone who would (either because of personal opinion or network opinion) agree with my views or not.

Just because at least half the things that come out of Trump's mouth are lies doesn't mean they shouldn't be presented somewhere without editorializing. As always, it's the responsibility of those watching to decide what to believe, hopefully based on facts and cogent analysis...and there's no end of analysis (cogent and otherwise) available to us, especially here in a world with the internet.

We have a POTUS candidate that is spouting outright lies which more than too many people accept as fact. When did it become the media's job to stick microphones in front of dishonest people and broadcast those lies?

What happened to actual reporting instead of just providing microphones?