"353 Minutes Attacking Trump!" Who knew?

ocean515 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
You're kicking this off with a false idea -- that Obama was "universally awful," which he was not except in the eyes of extreme partisans, or that Donald Trump is somehow Obama's equal, which he is in no way. Obama, a highly flawed president, was superior to Trump at the job in every single way imaginable.

In your extremely unbiased and non-partisan opinion....

Yea, and I have some water front property in Florida I know you would love....

Kobie · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
On a trip to a work site with one of my co-workers, he had Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Limbaugh posed an idea:

He said that the Media was the driver of the Liberal Agenda and the Democrat Party was the political arm of their message delivery.

That inverts the relationship as it is understood by most, but it does seem to make sense of the actions we observe.

Suddenly, the unrelenting bias of the MSM in support of the Democrat Party makes sense.

They are defending the Party that asserts the ideas they have created.

This was an interesting idea.

Ah yes. When I go for interesting ideas that don't instantly and reflexively blame liberals, I go to Rush Limbaugh.

If you take a word that man says seriously, you are an idiot.

holbritter · Jul 1, 2017

ocean515 said:
Now you're trying to spin your claim. The issue isn't total coverage of everything on the news. You just threw that in.

Your words:

They clearly state that the 353 minutes was spent on the Russian probe.....

From the study:

"...found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.

Again, given what is known to date, and the retractions, excuses, corrections the left's MSM have been forced to make, it's clear their work of fiction doesn't warrant the level of coverage they have devoted to the issue.

Trying to deny it is really foolish. At some point the alt-left is going to need to think about how they are viewed by people outside their bubble.

Oops...took me too long to post.

Kobie · Jul 1, 2017

ocean515 said:
In your extremely unbiased and non-partisan opinion....

Yea, and I have some water front property in Florida I know you would love....

You have yet to bring anything that actually defends Trump's presidency except "omg liberals are being mean to him."

How does it feel to constantly defend a total failure?

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

haymarket said:
I would be happy to examine your data that the 353 minutes used
*** no evidence
*** no named sources
*** no events
*** no actual crimes

Please do so.

Asked to prove a negative.

The question about the coverage is this: Who, what, where, when and why.

Go to the 6:40 point of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUD003UyCQ

ocean515 · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
On a trip to a work site with one of my co-workers, he had Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Limbaugh posed an idea:

He said that the Media was the driver of the Liberal Agenda and the Democrat Party was the political arm of their message delivery.

That inverts the relationship as it is understood by most, but it does seem to make sense of the actions we observe.

Suddenly, the unrelenting bias of the MSM in support of the Democrat Party makes sense.

They are defending the Party that asserts the ideas they have created.

This was an interesting idea.

Interesting theory that could be defended.

Certainly there is a mountain of evidence that could be used to support it.

PeteEU · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
I LOVE your responses!

You ignore what he proposes and then claim he hasn't proposed anything.

You must be FILLED with BLISS!

What has he proposed exactly? Not "I will do tax reform".. but a plan with details.

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
Also, on that same wavelength, anyone who was alive in the 90s should remember how much airtime was devoted to the Clinton impeachment scandal. If you said "a whole lot," you'd be right.

There was a lot of coverage devoted to the triviality of the charges.

It was obvious that Clinton lied to the American people and that he had what any rational person would call sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

That he soiled her blue dress on premise and on clock (the "l" in clock was not a typo) would have been the cause of an unlimited, unending explosions of outrage from the press if he had been a Republican.

All of that said, the outcomes for the country under Clinton were pretty good on balance.

The country did great even though the several women whose lives he had destroyed did suffer.

On balance, a win for the country.

ocean515 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
You have yet to bring anything that actually defends Trump's presidency except "omg liberals are being mean to him."

How does it feel to constantly defend a total failure?

When taking into consideration the credibility of who is making the claim, it's very simple to do. :thumbs:

Kobie · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
That he soiled her blue dress on premise and on clock (the "l" in clock was not a typo) would have been the cause of an unlimited, unending explosions of outrage from the press if he had been a Republican.

Argument From Hypothetical. Dismissed.

code1211 said:
On balance, a win for the country.

TRANSLATION: It's OK for "the media" to skewer a Democrat. Not a Republican.

Kobie · Jul 1, 2017

PeteEU said:
What has he proposed exactly? Not "I will do tax reform".. but a plan with details.

Trump supporters don't give a **** about actual policy. They just want to stick it to liberals, somehow. That's the entirety of the Trumpanzee worldview.

Pathetic trolls with no regard for who is actually affected. The inmates are truly running the asylum.

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

haymarket said:
That a terrible offense - what former VP Dick Cheaney called "an act of war" has been committed against the core democratic institutions of our nation raising the specter that the man who sits in the White House does so with the aid and support of our number one foreign adversary since the end of World War Two. This incredible danger was one of the reason the Founders gave us the Electoral College in the first place and it failed us in electing Trump.

Uh-huh...

So-

No evidence, no crimes, no named sources and no idea what you might be talking about.

The real world crimes we DO know occurred were committed by the Obama Administration's usual gang of suspects.

The actual unmasking is one thing. Hiding away the evidence in the Obama Library is another. This unmasking is ACTUAL criminal activity.

Chuck Schumer uses Senate rule to delay intel meeting; unmasking controversy sure to come up - Washington Times

Susan Rice suggests race, gender bias linked to 'unmasking' backlash | Fox News

Judicial Watch: Susan Rice Unmasking Material Sent to Obama Library

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
The previous president was not a manchild who ranted at anyone who dared cross him on Twitter at 3 a.m.

Next.

That's right!

He didn't use Twitter.

He used the IRS and the DOJ.

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

haymarket said:
That is the point. There HAS NOT been a TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE NEWS MEDIA on this subject and the numbers provided in the conservative MRC analysis demonstrate this as 83% of news during that measured five weeks was on something else other than the Russian probe.

So you are pushing a false narrative.

Oh, I get it!

We need to look at the entire forest, not just the trees that are used for the lynchings.

Well, that creates an entirely different view of the world!

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
:lamo

All rumor and lies.

Would it be possible to cut and past the nugget you are trying to relay.

The link demands a subscription to continue pat the first paragraph and a half.

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

Kobie said:
I prefer to call it what it has always been called -- "lying their ever-loving asses off." Which is all conservatives do these days. They lie. 100% of the time, all the time.

Well, the story you are citing does include actual, real wold sourced data.

The stories they are citing are based on nothing but conjecture and agenda.

joG · Jul 1, 2017

Captain Adverse said:
I just saw this video about a White House press conference on June 29, 2017.

Did I miss someone else posting this?

Quote (sans the parentheses bit) from the narrative at the bottom of the video.

She states that a review of the major networks evening news over the month of June showed:

1 minute on Tax Reform.

3 minutes on Infrastructure.

5 minutes on the Economy.

17 minutes on Healthcare.

353 minutes attacking the President.

Wow! 353 minutes attacking the President, only 26 minutes on real issues. Amazing. :shock:

Another example of the media bias some people refuse to acknowledge?

Most don't seem to understand the difference between "criticizing" personal behavior and "asking hard questions" as one here in the forum phrased it. They do not seem to realise that these are two totally different catagories and that, while the latter is intelligent aiming and constructive progress the other is moronic and only destructive. I am really quite surprised how sorry the level of political culture and debate is at present.

code1211 · Jul 1, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
The fact that he hasn't been able to accomplish anything yet despite having the house and senate, doesn't have any plans of his own how to actually reform our infrastructure or health care and is constantly going back on his promises. The American people don't agree with his agenda and his approval rate is in the can. A minority of Americans elected him on false promises and most have gotten buyer's remorse.

Taking the last point first, you are either lying or just ignorant.

He has signed various bits of legislation. Many just UN-do what Obama did. The result? check your 401K.

His plans, just the plans, for the tax reform are driving ongoing optimism as reflected in expanded domestic investment by private sector companies.

You don't like him. Fine. Spreading false facts, unfavorable rumors and fantasy does not change the real world. Are you punching your Trump Action Figure right now?

Trump Would Beat Clinton If Election Was Toda | The Daily Caller

President Trump Has Signed 40 Laws So Far, Here's What They Do : NPR

haymarket · Jul 1, 2017

ocean515 said:
Now you're trying to spin your claim. The issue isn't total coverage of everything on the news. You just threw that in.

Your words:

They clearly state that the 353 minutes was spent on the Russian probe.....

From the study:

"...found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.

Again, given what is known to date, and the retractions, excuses, corrections the left's MSM have been forced to make, it's clear their work of fiction doesn't warrant the level of coverage they have devoted to the issue.

Trying to deny it is really foolish. At some point the alt-left is going to need to think about how they are viewed by people outside their bubble.

What is factually wrong or inaccurate about the math I presented based on the information in the MRC analysis?

I gave the WHOLE Picture of what the news covered during those five weeks. What is wrong with a COMPLETE picture rather than a cherry picked biased picture ?

ocean515 · Jul 1, 2017

joG said:
Most don't seem to understand the difference between "criticizing" personal behavior and "asking hard questions" as one here in the forum phrased it. They do not seem to realise that these are two totally different catagories and that, while the latter is intelligent aiming and constructive progress the other is moronic and only destructive. I am really quite surprised how sorry the level of political culture and debate is at present.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with people asking hard questions or taking issue with aspects of proposed policies that need to be explained. That is a healthy and reasonable thing to do.

But what is taking place is extremely different, and very dangerous.

According to what I've read recently, there are Democrats actively discussing 25th Amendment remedies to removing the President from office.

Really? Does the left want to turn the US into Latin America and stage a coup?

Do they want to nullify the vote of 62 million citizens? Really?

People need to step back and gather some perspective. They need to look at who is pulling the chain.

haymarket · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
Uh-huh...

So-

No evidence, no crimes, no named sources and no idea what you might be talking about.

The real world crimes we DO know occurred were committed by the Obama Administration's usual gang of suspects.

The actual unmasking is one thing. Hiding away the evidence in the Obama Library is another. This unmasking is ACTUAL criminal activity.

Chuck Schumer uses Senate rule to delay intel meeting; unmasking controversy sure to come up - Washington Times

Susan Rice suggests race, gender bias linked to 'unmasking' backlash | Fox News

Judicial Watch: Susan Rice Unmasking Material Sent to Obama Library

Your post makes no sense on any level as a rational reply to the post from me you pretended to be replying to but dishonestly merely used as a springboard to your normal right wing talking points.

calamity · Jul 1, 2017

Captain Adverse said:
I just saw this video about a White House press conference on June 29, 2017.

Did I miss someone else posting this?

Quote (sans the parentheses bit) from the narrative at the bottom of the video.

She states that a review of the major networks evening news over the month of June showed:

1 minute on Tax Reform.

3 minutes on Infrastructure.

5 minutes on the Economy.

17 minutes on Healthcare.

353 minutes attacking the President.

Wow! 353 minutes attacking the President, only 26 minutes on real issues. Amazing. :shock:

Another example of the media bias some people refuse to acknowledge?

Define "attacking" Trump. If part or most of that 353 minutes includes discussing Russian collusion and moronic behavior on the part of the President, it's more than fair. Both are unprecedented in modern times.

ocean515 · Jul 1, 2017

haymarket said:
What is factually wrong or inaccurate about the math I presented based on the information in the MRC analysis?

I gave the WHOLE Picture of what the news covered during those five weeks. What is wrong with a COMPLETE picture rather than a cherry picked biased picture ?

The issue is coverage of the President.

Attempting to dilute that topic by trying to suggest the weather report should be included in determining how the President is covered is pathetic and desperate.

haymarket · Jul 1, 2017

code1211 said:
Oh, I get it!

We need to look at the entire forest, not just the trees that are used for the lynchings.

Well, that creates an entirely different view of the world!

When one is criticizing the network news thirty minute broadcast for a five week period and their coverage of the Russian probe and their coverage of the Trump administration - yes - one needs to look at the thirty minute broadcast to see how their time was allocated and then compare that to the figures Huckabee gave to see if her presentation was an honest reflection of the broadcasts of those three networks.

And it clearly was not and the math bears this out as 83% of what they presented was not the Russian probe.

haymarket · Jul 1, 2017

ocean515 said:
The issue is coverage of the President.

Attempting to dilute that topic by trying to suggest the weather report should be included in determining how the President is covered is pathetic and desperate.

The issue as defined by Huckabee in the OP is the news media spending 353 minutes "ATTACKING THE PRESIDENT". That is a lie. It is false. It is a blatant attempt at FAKE NEWS that never happened.

Read the analysis Huckabee quoted from and even that does NOT say the 353 minutes were spent attacking the president.

Study: TV News Is Obsessed With Trump-Russia Probe

A Media Research Center study of every broadcast network evening newscast in the five weeks since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller on May 17 found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.

Huckabee lied. The very report she quoted the numbers from DOES NOT accuse the networks of using 353 minutes to ATTACK THE PRESIDENT.

Huckabee lied.

Its an outright lie and anyone who defends it is participating in that outright lie.

"353 Minutes Attacking Trump!" Who knew?

Privileged