Thread: President Donald Trump

Did you know.....

Flake, McCain and Corker are retiring. They could each drop the R beside their name and throw a wrench in congress' majority

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I disagree

In that case, I rest my case.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Flake, McCain and Corker are retiring. They could each drop the R beside their name and throw a wrench in congress' majority

McCain would if he was in good enough health to do so. The fact is he is bedridden and dying.

Flake and Corker are a couple of cowards who like most republicans are more concerned with their own interests rather than doing what is good for the country. I am sure that the rich oligarchs that control the GOP have already promised them lucrative speaking engagements to keep their mouths shut and not rock the boat.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Was there an actual rebuttal in there somewhere or just a list of dems with no apparent context? The only people who care about Hillary and the last election are lemmings like you who are slaves to a crooked conman whose only concern is his own inflated ego.

I wrote, "I guess you didn't hear Mrs. Clinton at Central park yesterday going on about the Russian imagined hacking. "


You wrote, "No I didn't. And I doubt many people did except of course the pitiful idiots like you who inhabit Bullshit mountain who are obsessed with her."

I wrote, "Some of the pitiful ones; Cynthia Nixon, the former “Sex and the City” actress who is gunning to be governor of New York, and U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Chelsea Handler,Malcolm Gladwell, Young the Giant, Salman Rushdie, Padma Lakshmi and Michelle Wolf among the featured names. You're not too well informed are you? "

Are you using some kind of posting algorithm or do you actually read what you are responding to? The people I listed were at the same event Mrs. Clinton was headlining.
https://www.ozy.com/ozyfest

You sir are woefully uninformed about democratic politics. Are you Russian by any chance?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That sort of shite plays well with his base.

and distracts them from how subservient he was to putin on that stage.....and then discussing turning over a former US ambassador to russia for questioning

he exposed himself as incredibly weak...and is now overcompensating.

the iranians won't bite at this troll.

Originally Posted by mark45y

You sir are woefully uninformed about democratic politics. Are you Russian by any chance?

Hillary Clinton derangement syndrome. Trump is the enemy. Clinton is a shiny object for you idiots to fixate on.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Flake, McCain and Corker are retiring. They could each drop the R beside their name and throw a wrench in congress' majority

they could stop kavanaugh....while unlikely, it is possible.

Originally Posted by bsnub

I am sure that the rich oligarchs that control the GOP have already promised them lucrative speaking engagements to keep their mouths shut and not rock the boat.

You might be right. They're pretty much standing on their own in their objectiions, anyrhing short of bailing on the party is complicit at this point

Originally Posted by Humbert

Hillary Clinton derangement syndrome. Trump is the enemy. Clinton is a shiny object for you idiots to fixate on.

I agree with you but Democrats still find a way to push her to the front like having her headline Ozyfest. I'm afraid the idiots are the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by mark45y

I agree with you but Democrats still find a way to push her to the front like having her headline Ozyfest.

As usual you have it wrong. I never hear about Hillary unless it is coming from some right wing asshole like yourself. None of my friends bring her up at all.

Now for the reality ok Mark. Hillary is all over the right wing fever swamps and propaganda networks that you frequent. She is a daily news story there and like dimes to dollars Fox news is going on about her constantly. You lemmings eat it up.

Originally Posted by mark45y

I'm afraid the idiots are the Democratic party.

I think you will be eating those words come November.

Nearly 2 years into the Trump presidency, Fox News is still obsessed with Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton has played no active role in our politics since she lost the 2016 presidential election. She has watched from the sidelines as Donald Trump writes one of the most scandal-plagued chapters of the American presidency.

But on Fox News, the character “Hillary Clinton” still plays a crucial part in the story.

I call her a character because the value Fox News finds in Clinton is largely a narrative one. Fox News has devoted itself to painting Trump as a protagonist, which can be hard given the scandals, the incompetence, and the cruelty. But with the perfectly crafted villain, anyone can be made a hero.
And that villain is, still, Hillary Clinton.

Since Trump’s inauguration, Fox News has consistently covered Clinton more than other cable news channels — by a wide margin.



If you forced a robot to watch Fox News for the last six months — which is what the TV News Archive did — it would’ve seen Clinton’s face more than 2,000 times. That’s six times more than CNN.




And it’s not like Clinton has generated news. Rather, Fox News has often used Clinton as a non sequitur.

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted by protestors during dinner because of her role in the separation of immigrant families, Fox News host Sean Hannity’s reaction was: “Hillary? Nancy Pelosi? Elizabeth Warren? Where are you?”



When Fox News ran out of Clinton news to cover in January, it sent Jeanine Pirro to a dry cleaner near Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York, where she asked strangers about Clinton’s pantsuits.



The day Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, Hannity explored an alternate universe: “Hillary Rodham Clinton now would be making now a second appointment in the terms of the judicial courts of American history.” Hannity believed Trump would pick a replacement who would uphold the Constitution, which is “sadly the exact opposite of what Democrats and people like Hillary would want.”




This “Hillary” character — in which Fox News has found so much value — isn’t a post-2016 invention, nor is it purely a Fox News creation. Rather, it’s the product of 30 years of character development by the media and her opponents, which has resulted in a blunt storytelling tool for the pro-Trump news network.

The three decades of building up the “Hillary” character

Shawn Parry-Giles, a University of Maryland communication professor, has been recording Clinton news segments since 1996. She now has cabinets full of VHS tapes capturing nearly 1,200 broadcast stories, which she wrote about in her 2014 book.

“Once someone’s image gets cemented in popular culture or in the press, with contributions by opposition, it’s hard to break away from that,” Parry-Giles told me.

For Clinton, that image was cemented very early. Parry-Giles argues that the most “formative media moments” for Clinton was a 1992 interview in during her husband’s presidential campaign. Pushing back against the notion that she’s staying with Bill for political reasons, Clinton , “I’m not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” The next day, she reiterated this sentiment:




Parry-Giles argues that this feminist characterization is what became entrenched as the “true” Hillary Clinton, and she would be penalized for any hints of evolving away from this image.

So when Clinton pursued her own political path, journalists believed anything that didn’t resemble that character was inauthentic — a mask to hide the “true” Hillary because of her political ambition. And journalists believed it was their responsibility to unmask her, or at least tell their audience that what they were seeing was inauthentic.

As Fox News’s boss, Roger Ailes took the caricaturing of Clinton to extremes. As New York Times reporter Amy Chozick writes:

Over two decades, Fox News made Mrs. Clinton one of the longest-running villains on TV. Mr. Ailes would rewrite her part over the years: In the 1990s, she was a bra-burning affront to stay-at-home mothers; in her Senate race, she was an entitled wife riding on her husband’s coattails; by the 2008 primary, she was Lady MacBeth, desperate to star in her own production.

In 2016, Mr. Ailes made Mrs. Clinton, a centrist Democrat whose most audacious campaign promise was that she wouldn’t over-promise (“we don’t need any more of that”), seem like a cross between Saul Alinsky and Ramsay Bolton.

But it wasn’t just Fox.

During the 2008 election, Parry-Giles found that several pundits insinuated Clinton had a “lack of political authenticity in favor of political expediency.” In a conversation with MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, the Los Angeles Times’s Rosa Brooks said the last time they saw the “real Hillary” was in 1992, during the Tammy Wynette interview. CNN’s Carol Costello openly pondered whether Clinton was choosing a “mantle of feminism” in favor of “political masculinity.” Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame wrote an biography of Clinton, in which he described Clinton as a “very much camouflaged woman,” even as he called her a highly qualified candidate.

This idea that she was always hiding something was the dominant theme of most Hillary Clinton coverage in recent years. During the 2016 election, the most-covered story on the front page of the New York Times was Clinton’s email scandal — covered far more than Trump’s Muslim ban proposal.




On the evening news, Clinton’s emails got more airtime than all policy stories combined.

All of this built up the narrative that Clinton was hiding something — that she was deceiving the public, hiding her authentic self, for political power.

Once Clinton lost and Trump became president, much of this narrative went away.

Not on Fox News.

Starring on Fox News: “Hillary”

After every presidential election, the losing candidate continues to play a role as the face of the losing party.

We can see this trend with both John McCain after his 2008 loss and Mitt Romney after his 2012 loss. But the residual coverage of Clinton far surpasses them on all networks.




Of all the cable networks, it’s Fox News that has gotten the most mileage from this character.

Last fall, congressional Republicans and Fox News pushed the Uranium One conspiracy — the idea Hillary Clinton personally benefited from sale of uranium to Russia. This is untrue.



When Fox News reports on FBI special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia, they make sure to bring Clinton into the story.




They say it was Clinton who started this witch hunt — that it was her campaign that paid for the “fake Russian dossier,” which eventually led to the investigation. (The Clinton campaign did pay for the dossier, but we don’t know how much of a part it played in the initial FISA warrant, despite top Republicans trying to prove otherwise.)

Sometimes, they just use Clinton as a foil to show that, no matter what Trump did, Clinton is way worse.




When there is news that legitimately involves Clinton, Fox News ramps up its coverage.

The network was particularly interested in the Justice Department’s inspector general’s report, which looked at the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.



Many Fox News pundits, including Hannity, believed it would show the FBI was protecting Clinton — that there was an alternate justice system for elites like the Clintons. (It showed no such thing.)




All of these narratives are complex. It requires a bit of mental gymnastics to justify Clinton being the topic of these stories.

But it all makes sense for Fox and its viewers.

”What Fox wanted was the president having sex in a room Reagan wouldn’t walk into without a jacket on,” Lucianne Goldberg, a regular Fox News guest during Bill Clinton’s presidency, told Gabriel Sherman.

She added, “Roger [Ailes] understands you must simplify, simplify, simplify.”

And on Fox News, there’s nothing simpler than “Hillary.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/11/175268...x-news-villain

Originally Posted by mark45y

I agree with you but Democrats still find a way to push her to the front like having her headline Ozyfest. I'm afraid the idiots are the Democratic party.

Let's see. Your original point was that dems blame the Russians for their loss in 2016 instead of Hillary. As proof you post the list of speakers at a dem fund raising event. Did you say you were related to Carter Page?

Mark it is funny that after reading the above article I posted I noticed a very similar pattern in your posts. Gee you wouldn't happen to be parroting this shit now would you? By your posting history it would sure seem like it.

Originally Posted by Cujo

The Russian hackers and bots and propagandists have done their job on you.

indeed they did a good job, look how hysterical they have made all the anti-Trumptards who are missing the elephant in the room

Originally Posted by bsnub

Nearly 2 years into the Trump presidency, Fox News is still obsessed with Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton has played no active role in our politics since she lost the 2016 presidential election. She has watched from the sidelines as Donald Trump writes one of the most scandal-plagued chapters of the American presidency.

But on Fox News, the character “Hillary Clinton” still plays a crucial part in the story.

I call her a character because the value Fox News finds in Clinton is largely a narrative one. Fox News has devoted itself to painting Trump as a protagonist, which can be hard given the scandals, the incompetence, and the cruelty. But with the perfectly crafted villain, anyone can be made a hero.
And that villain is, still, Hillary Clinton.

Since Trump’s inauguration, Fox News has consistently covered Clinton more than other cable news channels — by a wide margin.



If you forced a robot to watch Fox News for the last six months — which is what the TV News Archive did — it would’ve seen Clinton’s face more than 2,000 times. That’s six times more than CNN.




And it’s not like Clinton has generated news. Rather, Fox News has often used Clinton as a non sequitur.

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted by protestors during dinner because of her role in the separation of immigrant families, Fox News host Sean Hannity’s reaction was: “Hillary? Nancy Pelosi? Elizabeth Warren? Where are you?”



When Fox News ran out of Clinton news to cover in January, it sent Jeanine Pirro to a dry cleaner near Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York, where she asked strangers about Clinton’s pantsuits.



The day Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, Hannity explored an alternate universe: “Hillary Rodham Clinton now would be making now a second appointment in the terms of the judicial courts of American history.” Hannity believed Trump would pick a replacement who would uphold the Constitution, which is “sadly the exact opposite of what Democrats and people like Hillary would want.”




This “Hillary” character — in which Fox News has found so much value — isn’t a post-2016 invention, nor is it purely a Fox News creation. Rather, it’s the product of 30 years of character development by the media and her opponents, which has resulted in a blunt storytelling tool for the pro-Trump news network.

The three decades of building up the “Hillary” character

Shawn Parry-Giles, a University of Maryland communication professor, has been recording Clinton news segments since 1996. She now has cabinets full of VHS tapes capturing nearly 1,200 broadcast stories, which she wrote about in her 2014 book.

“Once someone’s image gets cemented in popular culture or in the press, with contributions by opposition, it’s hard to break away from that,” Parry-Giles told me.

For Clinton, that image was cemented very early. Parry-Giles argues that the most “formative media moments” for Clinton was a 1992 interview in during her husband’s presidential campaign. Pushing back against the notion that she’s staying with Bill for political reasons, Clinton , “I’m not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” The next day, she reiterated this sentiment:




Parry-Giles argues that this feminist characterization is what became entrenched as the “true” Hillary Clinton, and she would be penalized for any hints of evolving away from this image.

So when Clinton pursued her own political path, journalists believed anything that didn’t resemble that character was inauthentic — a mask to hide the “true” Hillary because of her political ambition. And journalists believed it was their responsibility to unmask her, or at least tell their audience that what they were seeing was inauthentic.

As Fox News’s boss, Roger Ailes took the caricaturing of Clinton to extremes. As New York Times reporter Amy Chozick writes:

Over two decades, Fox News made Mrs. Clinton one of the longest-running villains on TV. Mr. Ailes would rewrite her part over the years: In the 1990s, she was a bra-burning affront to stay-at-home mothers; in her Senate race, she was an entitled wife riding on her husband’s coattails; by the 2008 primary, she was Lady MacBeth, desperate to star in her own production.

In 2016, Mr. Ailes made Mrs. Clinton, a centrist Democrat whose most audacious campaign promise was that she wouldn’t over-promise (“we don’t need any more of that”), seem like a cross between Saul Alinsky and Ramsay Bolton.

But it wasn’t just Fox.

During the 2008 election, Parry-Giles found that several pundits insinuated Clinton had a “lack of political authenticity in favor of political expediency.” In a conversation with MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, the Los Angeles Times’s Rosa Brooks said the last time they saw the “real Hillary” was in 1992, during the Tammy Wynette interview. CNN’s Carol Costello openly pondered whether Clinton was choosing a “mantle of feminism” in favor of “political masculinity.” Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame wrote an biography of Clinton, in which he described Clinton as a “very much camouflaged woman,” even as he called her a highly qualified candidate.

This idea that she was always hiding something was the dominant theme of most Hillary Clinton coverage in recent years. During the 2016 election, the most-covered story on the front page of the New York Times was Clinton’s email scandal — covered far more than Trump’s Muslim ban proposal.




On the evening news, Clinton’s emails got more airtime than all policy stories combined.

All of this built up the narrative that Clinton was hiding something — that she was deceiving the public, hiding her authentic self, for political power.

Once Clinton lost and Trump became president, much of this narrative went away.

Not on Fox News.

Starring on Fox News: “Hillary”

After every presidential election, the losing candidate continues to play a role as the face of the losing party.

We can see this trend with both John McCain after his 2008 loss and Mitt Romney after his 2012 loss. But the residual coverage of Clinton far surpasses them on all networks.




Of all the cable networks, it’s Fox News that has gotten the most mileage from this character.

Last fall, congressional Republicans and Fox News pushed the Uranium One conspiracy — the idea Hillary Clinton personally benefited from sale of uranium to Russia. This is untrue.



When Fox News reports on FBI special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia, they make sure to bring Clinton into the story.




They say it was Clinton who started this witch hunt — that it was her campaign that paid for the “fake Russian dossier,” which eventually led to the investigation. (The Clinton campaign did pay for the dossier, but we don’t know how much of a part it played in the initial FISA warrant, despite top Republicans trying to prove otherwise.)

Sometimes, they just use Clinton as a foil to show that, no matter what Trump did, Clinton is way worse.




When there is news that legitimately involves Clinton, Fox News ramps up its coverage.

The network was particularly interested in the Justice Department’s inspector general’s report, which looked at the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.



Many Fox News pundits, including Hannity, believed it would show the FBI was protecting Clinton — that there was an alternate justice system for elites like the Clintons. (It showed no such thing.)




All of these narratives are complex. It requires a bit of mental gymnastics to justify Clinton being the topic of these stories.

But it all makes sense for Fox and its viewers.

”What Fox wanted was the president having sex in a room Reagan wouldn’t walk into without a jacket on,” Lucianne Goldberg, a regular Fox News guest during Bill Clinton’s presidency, told Gabriel Sherman.

She added, “Roger [Ailes] understands you must simplify, simplify, simplify.”

And on Fox News, there’s nothing simpler than “Hillary.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/11/175268...x-news-villain

jesus, what kind of obsessed nutter will take the time to make such a post for a weak non-sense point about Hillary Clinton ???

Here is your wag the dog to distract from the disastrous Helsinki summit....

Originally Posted by Humbert

Let's see. Your original point was that dems blame the Russians for their loss in 2016 instead of Hillary. As proof you post the list of speakers at a dem fund raising event. Did you say you were related to Carter Page?

Why would you lie like that when my posts are up for anyone to read. I said Hillary blamed Comey the Director of the FBI for losing the electeion and posted a link where she is recorded saying that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...n-934954563510

Her appearance at Ozyfest is suggesting that the Dems are going to run her again against Trump. She lost it for you last time and she could do it again. If I was Trump and Fox I would push Hillary every chance I got as she is so easy to beat. This time the major Republican donors will be funding Hillary. They learned from you guys how effective she is at botching things up from emails, to kinky hubbies and for herself and her lady friend. What more could you ask for. Weiner and Bill Clinton make pee pee hookers seem tame.

^^ trump's the wag the dog to distract from congress fullfilling its wish list

Originally Posted by mark45y

Why would you lie like that when my posts are up for anyone to read. I said Hillary blamed Comey the Director of the FBI for losing the electeion and posted a link where she is recorded saying that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...n-934954563510

Her appearance at Ozyfest is suggesting that the Dems are going to run her again against Trump. She lost it for you last time and she could do it again. If I was Trump and Fox I would push Hillary every chance I got as she is so easy to beat. This time the major Republican donors will be funding Hillary. They learned from you guys how effective she is at botching things up from emails, to kinky hubbies and for herself and her lady friend. What more could you ask for. Weiner and Bill Clinton make pee pee hookers seem tame.

See your post #16453

Originally Posted by Humbert

See your post #16453

I did. I linked it twice. Hillary says Comey is the reason she lost the election. You wrote, "Let's see. Your original point was that dems blame the Russians for their loss in 2016 instead of Hillary. As proof you post the list of speakers at a dem fund raising event. Did you say you were related to Carter Page?"
Your post is a lie. Hillary/Dems blame Comey first and foremost and that's what I said. I didn't list speakers at Ozyfest as proof of anything except your ignorance of democratic events.

Your auto flame machine must be confusing me with someone else. Some stuff is difficult to automate and you should try reading the posts sometimes.

You have a credibility problem mark.

It happens when you’re a self-confessed troll who contradicts his own posts.

Originally Posted by mark45y

"I guess you didn't hear Mrs. Clinton at Central park yesterday going on about the Russian imagined hacking. "

Isn't Hillary yesterday's news...something like 2 years ago.....who gives a shit about what she's saying?

Originally Posted by Norton

Not to imply Trump has done much for "middle America" but he has convinced them he has.

He'd have a harder job of it trying to convince turkeys to vote for Xmas.