The Press doubles down on Trump

[GiaCat]

They must be really, really afraid of him. The thing is, everyone already knows he is a scoundrel. People love scoundrels, look at Bill Clinton Its not like he portrays himself as a holy roller and got caught with his morals around his ankles. Something which is more likely to happen to his self-righteous VP.

I predict the Press will be telling us all the way till election day that Trump is in a "meltdown" and HC will win by a landslide. That may backfire on them because HC is very unlikable.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

They must be really, really afraid of him. The thing is, everyone already knows he is a scoundrel. People love scoundrels, look at Bill Clinton Its not like he portrays himself as a holy roller and got caught with his morals around his ankles. Something which is more likely to happen to his self-righteous VP.

I predict the Press will be telling us all the way till election day that Trump is in a "meltdown" and HC will win by a landslide. That may backfire on them because HC is very unlikable.

I agree.

 

[RoryN]

They must be really, really afraid of him.

Why? What could he do to them?

 

[Que]

It is somewhat amusing to see The Usual Suspects talking about Bill Clinton's far more egregious behavior as a false equivalency the only thing that makes it not equivalent is the fact that Bill Clinton's behavior was worse.

One poster opined that it isn't relevant due to the fact that it didn't hurt Bill Clinton because he obscured those allegations be until after he was already elected president. As if hiding egregious behavior is the same as not having it.

The truth is, he didn't hide it, really. It was well-known. Those that supported him didn't care. They sure cared about Clarence Thomas but they didn't give a shit about Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did was far worse than anything to Clarence Thomas was accused of yet Clarence Thomas was lynched and Bill Clinton was reelected. It's called moral relativism and Democrats excel at it.

The final layer of protection to try to insulate Hillary Clinton is to suggest that well it's not her fault that her husband is a lecherous molesting sex offender, when her words and actions went far beyond merely enabling bill and his behavior. She actively participated in trying to destroy the reputation of Slick Willy's victims.

All this is about is to inoculate Hillary Clinton from any responsibility for how she personally has treated women in an effort to both secure the women vote and to encourage women to get out and vote. This is no different than that bullshit about black lives matter trying to get out the black vote. It's the same tactic exactly.

 

[Sean]

It is somewhat amusing to see The Usual Suspects talking about Bill Clinton's far more egregious behavior as a false equivalency the only thing that makes it not equivalent is the fact that Bill Clinton's behavior was worse.

Trump has been accused of rape four times, including one that would get this post deleted on Lit. Tell us again how Bill was worse?

 

[Que]

Why? What could he do to them?

Make them look foolish in their prognostications in the unlikely event that he is actually elected?

You don't think that the majority of the press would be absolutely horrified if Trump were elected?

 

[Super-Surprise]

They must be really, really afraid of him. The thing is, everyone already knows he is a scoundrel. People love scoundrels, look at Bill Clinton Its not like he portrays himself as a holy roller and got caught with his morals around his ankles. Something which is more likely to happen to his self-righteous VP.

I predict the Press will be telling us all the way till election day that Trump is in a "meltdown" and HC will win by a landslide. That may backfire on them because HC is very unlikable.

You are spot on.

http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/molehill_large.jpg

 

[RoryN]

Make them look foolish in their prognostications in the unlikely event that he is actually elected?

You don't think that the majority of the press would be absolutely horrified if Trump were elected?

Hu... wha?

Of course not. Trump getting elected would be a massive boon to their industry; his candidacy already has been.

If you're going to tell me they'd be "embarrassed" or "defeated" by him winning, let me prepare myself - that kind of laughter could ruin my spleen! They're the press, not imbeciles on a forum who get butthurt if they're shown to be wrong. LOL
They'd simply work the results to their advantage.

 

[eyerlives]

Trump has been accused of rape four times, including one that would get this post deleted on Lit. Tell us again how Bill was worse?

Tell us again how many flights "Bill" logged on his good buddy Jerry Epstein's infamous aircraft.

 

[Que]

Trump has been accused of rape four times, including one that would get this post deleted on Lit. Tell us again how Bill was worse?

"Us?"

Who else are you speaking for, wannabe?

 

[Que]

Hu... wha?

Of course not. Trump getting elected would be a massive boon to their industry; his candidacy already has been.

If you're going to tell me they'd be "embarrassed" or "defeated" by him winning, let me prepare myself - that kind of laughter could ruin my spleen! They're the press, not imbeciles on a forum who get butthurt if they're shown to be wrong. LOL
They'd simply work the results to their advantage.

Yes, battle-hardened "professional," dispassionate "journalists" that side with truth wherever it lays and issue front-page, above-the-fold retractions when they err.

Unless, of course, they were actually "right" and the public is idiotically distracted by irrelevent things like the "true" story of GWB's Guard desertion being based on forged documents.

The important thing is they "know" and report the "truth," despite any distracting evidence to the contrary, or the lack of probitive evidence to be found.

I am sure if Trump were to win they would collectively eschew sackcloth and ashes in favor of bright, happy smiles and do everything they can to make a Trump administration welcome and successful.

 

[Wrong Element]

The truth is, he didn't hide it, really. It was well-known. Those that supported him didn't care. They sure cared about Clarence Thomas but they didn't give a shit about Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did was far worse than anything to Clarence Thomas was accused of yet Clarence Thomas was lynched and Bill Clinton was reelected. It's called moral relativism and Democrats excel at it.

The "lynched" Clarence Thomas began his 26th term on the Supreme Court last week. A real Emmitt Till, that one.

The final layer of protection to try to insulate Hillary Clinton is to suggest that well it's not her fault that her husband is a lecherous molesting sex offender, when her words and actions went far beyond merely enabling bill and his behavior. She actively participated in trying to destroy the reputation of Slick Willy's victims.

Having an affair with a married man doesn't make one a "victim."

 

[Darbhinder]

It is somewhat amusing to see The Usual Suspects talking about Bill Clinton's far more egregious behavior as a false equivalency the only thing that makes it not equivalent is the fact that Bill Clinton's behavior was worse.

One poster opined that it isn't relevant due to the fact that it didn't hurt Bill Clinton because he obscured those allegations be until after he was already elected president. As if hiding egregious behavior is the same as not having it.

The truth is, he didn't hide it, really. It was well-known. Those that supported him didn't care. They sure cared about Clarence Thomas but they didn't give a shit about Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did was far worse than anything to Clarence Thomas was accused of yet Clarence Thomas was lynched and Bill Clinton was reelected. It's called moral relativism and Democrats excel at it.

The final layer of protection to try to insulate Hillary Clinton is to suggest that well it's not her fault that her husband is a lecherous molesting sex offender, when her words and actions went far beyond merely enabling bill and his behavior. She actively participated in trying to destroy the reputation of Slick Willy's victims.

All this is about is to inoculate Hillary Clinton from any responsibility for how she personally has treated women in an effort to both secure the women vote and to encourage women to get out and vote. This is no different than that bullshit about black lives matter trying to get out the black vote. It's the same tactic exactly.

Bill isn't running, queerbait. It's hillarys time to wipe the floor with you republican scum.

 

[Que]

The "lynched" Clarence Thomas began his 26th term on the Supreme Court last week. A real Emmitt Till, that one.





Having an affair with a married man doesn't make one a "victim."

Did SCOTUS issue a ruling that restored the man's reputation that I missed?

Not exactly sure what your point is. Are you saying that just because the character assassination did not have the effect of getting him Borked means this character assassination did not occur? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

Liberal dogma 101 says that Monica Lewinsky was not in a position to give consent because of the power differential. Or is that different because Bill Clinton is a Democrat? Rhetorical.

If it even got as far as being investigated by the equal employment opportunity commission a team of lawyers would sue any Corporation in America that allowed even a low-level supervisor to engage in that sort of activity with an underling.

You also seem to forget that that little incident which is forbidden in every corporation in America only came out because of his far more egregious actions that had nothing to do with a consensual affair with a married man as you choose to minimize it, to your shame.

 

[Que]

Bill isn't running, queeeeeeer, totally queeeeeeeeer, queerbait. It's hillarys time to wipe the floor with you republican scum.

Are you one of the posters that Luke alluded to when he mentioned that several of you attended a school for students that don't read so good?

You evidently missed the part where I pointed out how the entire "gotcha" is to inoculate Hillary because specifically of how she treated women who had accusations about Bill. My conclusion is about Hillary not about Bill.

What's up with you just abandoning the effort to try to pin darbinger on me by the way, Rob? Too many slip-ups? How are you going to square that with your consistent claim that you never use an ALT; no, never; not once?

You just don't seem to have the energy used to. I think maybe you need a snack; your blood sugar might be a little low. Is everything okay at home with regard to your relationship between you and your refrigerator?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Why? What could he do to them?

They aren't afraid of him, but he is a wild card who may not do as he is told.

I posted in your other thread HRC thanking the Council on Foreign Relations for telling her what to do and how to think. You didn't comment so I guess you didn't see that. (I can post again if you like, let me kbiw) Our major media companies have employees as members of the CFR as well. (for instance, Dan rather just released an anti Trump rant...well rather is a CFR member) CFR is the organization I know, surely there are others.

Everything is orchestrated, the story has already been written. Anyone who may deviate from the script must go

 

[Wrong Element]

Did SCOTUS issue a ruling that restored the man's reputation that I missed?

Not exactly sure what your point is. Are you saying that just because the character assassination did not have the effect of getting him Borked means this character assassination did not occur? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

Liberal dogma 101 says that Monica Lewinsky was not in a position to give consent because of the power differential. Or is that different because Bill Clinton is a Democrat? Rhetorical.

If it even got as far as being investigated by the equal employment opportunity commission a team of lawyers would sue any Corporation in America that allowed even a low-level supervisor to engage in that sort of activity with an underling.

You also seem to forget that that little incident which is forbidden in every corporation in America only came out because of his far more egregious actions that had nothing to do with a consensual affair with a married man as you choose to minimize it, to your shame.

1. Do some of you all not know yet that Bill Clinton isn't running for anything in 2016?

2. What "far more egregious action?" It came out because of the ridiculous Paula Jones suit, which was basically the same thing except for being a one-time quickie and not an ongoing situation; and which was, from the word go, designed by the VRWC as a wedge to somehow get Ken Starr involved in investigating the consensual sexual misbehavior of a president. My feelings about Paula Jones have never changed, which is that the original Troopergate story in the American Spectator was probably true as concerns her and Clinton. She was a dumbass small town slut who got convinced there would be big money in pretending she was a victim.

3. And no, Clarence Thomas didn't get "borked," because the consequences for he and Bork were pretty different. Explain to me how Thomas has suffered materially in any way because some people believe nasty things about him, which is not unheard of in Washington.

As for "character assassination," that's only the case if one believes the charges against him were false. No one ever says that Ted Bundy's character was assassinated.

 

[Que]

So when Bill Clinton ran with Hillary as his purported co-president that was a bonus that was a plus. But now that Hillary is running for president it's no longer ago presidency and bill and his baggage will not come along?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about what you just did there? You just basically said that the charges unsubstantiated though they were against Clarence Thomas are valid and the charges against Bill Clinton which by the way in an actual court of law cost him his law license for lying about, are scurrilous?

SMH.

It would be one thing if you were just this hyperbolic partisan hack. But your attitude is the absolute norm for Hillary supporters.

Maybe Rory has the right idea. How about let's just further polarize this country. Let's keep list of names. Let's shame each other, boycott each other's business and when violence erupts, we'll consult our lists.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once again we see "but...but...CLINTON!" used to justify and rationalize Trump's misogynist behavior.

 

[Que]

Once again we see "but...but...CLINTON!" used to justify and rationalize Trump's misogynist behavior.

Already addressed, Rob.

 

[GiaCat]

Why? What could he do to them?

I wonder the same thing. But they are much more ruthless with him than a standard Republican.

 

[GiaCat]

You are spot on.

http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/molehill_large.jpg

funny

 

[Que]

I wonder the same thing. But they are much more ruthless with him than a standard Republican.

Only after he clinched the nomination. The national press always gives us our Republican candidate. They tear down everyone except the guy that they actually want to lose to the Democrat.

 

[patient1]

Why? What could he do to them?

When he's elected Leader, he will "Loosen up libel laws". They will be unable to say or print anything negative without being sued. They will be unable to use his trademarked/copyrighted surname at all without paying him royalties.

When they gave him that first $billion or so in free coverage, they never expected it to get out of hand. It was a scheme to give Hillary a cake-walk general election.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Violent niggers and arabs and wall street bankers are Hillarys entire support.