• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Actually, most of the commentary on this is not true. The NY Times has published so much obviously wrong information <snip>
Click to expand...
Specifics?

sunmaster14 said:
As for damage? I predict none.
Click to expand...
The Real World is different.

sunmaster14 said:
I think it's pretty pathetic that the mainstream media is trying to blow this up into something important. I doubt it's because they're hoping it has legs. I think the main motivation is to distract from all of the evidence coming out about how the FBI has been so thoroughly corrupted that it gave Hillary a pass on the email scandal.
Click to expand...
No, what's pathetic is your desperation to divert attention onto your master's nonsensical rants about FBI corruption.
 
SezMe said:
This is just pathetic. Really bad. Here we have a man who's main proclamation - by his own words - is his business acumen. Yet you whine "media bias" for going after the story. You claim some uniform motivation across all media for airing a story about a central facet of a presidential candidate in the most important month of the campaign. Do you think they should wait until December to air the story?

And don't worry that the FBI being corrupt is being given a pass. I know about it, you know about it, every media person knows about it. The hearings were carried live and digested endlessly. It's now an old non-story yet you want the media to report it some more. On what? There's no new information to be had and the old information is that she did nothing wrong.

I'm at a loss for words on this line of "reasoning". At the risk of repeating myself, this is just pathetic.
Click to expand...

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.
 
catsmate said:
Then let the Trumpet sue.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's why the executive editor of the Times made the statement that he'd risk going to jail if he could get to publish all his tax returns. First, it was a not-so-veiled invitation to hackers, but secondly it was a love letter to Trump and his passion for lawsuits. "Hell, we're willing to go to jail; you think a little lawsuit is going to scare us."
 
NoahFence said:
No, I'm quite sure he's using it right. In THIS reality, the one where we actually live, he's using it right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain why it's pathetic to believe that harping on a story about Trump declaring a net operating loss carryforward on his tax return is evidence of media bias? It's kind of silly to argue that the important detail of the story is that Trump had a business loss of $916 million. That part of his history has been known for roughly 25 years and had already been talked about ad nauseum in the last year.

In contrast, except for Fox News, there has been almost no reporting on the FBI's ridiculous immunity deals with Hillary's top aides. Deals in which the FBI agreed not to look at emails past January 2015, thus leaving out the time period most relevant for evidence of obstruction of justice.

ETA: I just did a Google News search using the phrase "FBI immunity deals." Amazingly (or perhaps the better word is "pathetically"), no mainstream news source other than Fox News has a story on the topic.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
ETA: I just did a Google News search using the phrase "FBI immunity deals." Amazingly (or perhaps the better word is "pathetically"), no mainstream news source other than Fox News has a story on the topic.
Click to expand...

Well, we all know (at least RT and Sputnik tell us so) that Google is slanted to not report Bad Hillary News.

Or it could be that you included "deals" and it's looking for that text. I put in "FBI Immunity Emails" and it comes back with USA Today, CNN, Politico, Fox, WSJ, The Telegraph, ABC... on page 1.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, we all know (at least RT and Sputnik tell us so) that Google is slanted to not report Bad Hillary News.

Or it could be that you included "deals" and it's looking for that text. I put in "FBI Immunity Emails" and it comes back with USA Today, CNN, Politico, Fox, WSJ, The Telegraph, ABC... on page 1.
Click to expand...

Really? Not for me.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Nothing more recent than Sep 23-24? All of the really bad stuff came out just in the last week.

Also, your USA Today link is Jonathan Turley's op-ed. It's not part of the news section.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't pull something trying to move those goalposts. Remember, lift with your legs, not your back.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump is putting possible infidelities by Hillary front and center.
That makes his love-life, both real and assumed, fair game.
Click to expand...

I assert an assumed or inferred love life is not fair game. And even if it were fair game, there is no reason to go there; especially when there are so very many other reasons to discuss.

NoahFence said:
Hell yes I would. Dude, that's SICK ****.

I don't want that type of person running my country.
Click to expand...

So how much weight do you put on such a statement? If a candidate lined up with you on every major issue and said the daughter thing, would you consider not voting for him or her?

It is likely he thought it was a compliment (in Donald's mind there is no greater complement then "I would totally do you") but it was expressed in an akward and tone-deaf manner1. But there are dozens of better example of his being tone deaf. We don't need to devote a whole page in this thread to that comment.


...........
(1) and nobody knows more about akward and tone-deaf comments than Trump does.
 
Last edited:
Have you read Trump's comments about Paris Hilton, how beautiful he thought she was when he saw her at age 12 and how he and Melania enjoyed watching her sex tape?

At the very least, Trump has no sense of how creepy he can sound.
 
A'isha said:
I hope you don't pull something trying to move those goalposts. Remember, lift with your legs, not your back.
Click to expand...

I think you're playing with imaginary goalposts. Here is what I said (emphasis added):

"In contrast, except for Fox News, there has been almost no reporting on the FBI's ridiculous immunity deals with Hillary's top aides. Deals in which the FBI agreed not to look at emails past January 2015, thus leaving out the time period most relevant for evidence of obstruction of justice."

The ridiculousness of the immunity deals was not publicly available until this week.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I think you're playing with imaginary goalposts. Here is what I said (emphasis added):

"In contrast, except for Fox News, there has been almost no reporting on the FBI's ridiculous immunity deals with Hillary's top aides. Deals in which the FBI agreed not to look at emails past January 2015, thus leaving out the time period most relevant for evidence of obstruction of justice."

The ridiculousness of the immunity deals was not publicly available until this week.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for proof that the right wig news-o-sphere is where this is currently being spun, you're right. The "news" didn't break in the last week. Right wing outrage did. Still, if you get a senator or congress critter to speak up, the MSM will report on the story of that person opining that "this is outrageous, simply outrageous". You seem to be objecting that they're not as outraged as you are.

NYTimes Sep 27 and 28. Two articles on the subject and the squawk being raised by the Republicans. What more do you actually want?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/27/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/28/us/politics/ap-us-congress-fbi-director-the-latest.html

So is this a Google Conspiracy - you have a thread for that where it belongs? Or is this a MSM conspiracy? The story was widely reported on. The "big revelations" you're speaking of are complaints from partisans working hard to keep the story alive. And even those are being reported on. What more do you actually want?
 
Foolmewunz said:
If you're looking for proof that the right wig news-o-sphere is where this is currently being spun, you're right. The "news" didn't break in the last week. Right wing outrage did. Still, if you get a senator or congress critter to speak up, the MSM will report on the story of that person opining that "this is outrageous, simply outrageous". You seem to be objecting that they're not as outraged as you are.

NYTimes Sep 27 and 28. Two articles on the subject and the squawk being raised by the Republicans. What more do you actually want?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/27/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/28/us/politics/ap-us-congress-fbi-director-the-latest.html

So is this a Google Conspiracy - you have a thread for that where it belongs? Or is this a MSM conspiracy? The story was widely reported on. The "big revelations" you're speaking of are complaints from partisans working hard to keep the story alive. And even those are being reported on. What more do you actually want?
Click to expand...

Hillary burned in effigy on every news site's front page and all the attractive (By the orange one's standards) female anchors and reporters kneeling with their mouths open waiting for The Donald to come over?

And now to lighten the mood a bit:

To, the Dancing Bug presents Donald and His Imaginary Publicist Prepare for a Debate

Tom the Dancing Bug, IN WHICH Calvinist Donald and his Hobbesian publicist John Miller prepare for a debate in a cartoon world of their own making.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I read something somewhere that indicated it was entirely possible that Marla Maples, who was Trump's wife at the time, was the one who provided the NYT with the tax returns.

If true, that is entirely legal. She filed the tax return jointly with Trump that year, therefore she has just as much right as he does to release/not release said tax return, because it is just as much her return as it is his. She has, ostensibly, sworn to do everything she can to prevent him from gaining the Presidency and has only kept her mouth shut thus far because he threatened her monetarily. He can't go after her for this because she is legally allowed to release that return. Again, this assumes that she was the one who released it, which is by no means proven, but it may explain why the NYT isn't concerned about any possible lawsuits from Trump in regards to its release.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom