Nanker Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Yup. That's one thing I like about Trump. He'll tell the media to go !@#$ themselves, they'll get their panties in a bunch for a time...and then come back for more. And like him or not, you have to admit he ran a brilliant campaign. This. He's the first "Republican" who doesn't give a shite about what anybody says about him... except he takes note of them and then proceeds to treat them badly. He's the first "Republican" who street fights like a Democrat like say, Chuck Schumer - who also can't be on camera enough to satisfy himself. He's the first "Republican" who isn't afraid to not be seen as a squeaky clean "Saint", like Mitt - who was embarrassed just by talk that he was being ungentlemanly. He's the first "Republican" who has celebrity status that could reside as easily in Hollywood as it could on Wall Street, or in Washington, DC. He's more recognizable to the "average" American than any other "Republican" party member. He's the first "Republican" who harbors the grudge against the Manhattan elite because he's from Queens and therefore an outside to those power broker elites. He's the first "Republican" who has broken the mold. Sure, the mold was made of Waterford crystal and filled with Beluga caviar and the tray it was on was surrounded by dozens of Swarovski flutes filled with Cristal Champagne, but hey... it's a party. Party on. [/dtrump] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Like I said earlier, it DOESNT MATTER WHO the Republican nominee is. The media will smear whoever the candidate is. Don't think for a second the media would have been fair to cruz, kasich, Paul or Carson. The media would dig up a questionable and irrelevant slandering story from 25 years against anyone standing in Hillary's way to the crown. It doesn't matter. The media is not objective. The Republican party led by guys like McCain and Romney allowed themselves to be portrayed how the media wants and were always too quick to back down and apologize when they had done nothing wrong. Its all a crock. Republicans/conservatives/libertarians will NEVER get a fair deal in the media. They are 100% in lock step unison with the progressive agenda. I understand that. The difference here is that the media knows Trump will get his ass stomped by Hillary, so they kept him in the news to increase his visibility, but held back on the real dirt until he got the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 I understand that. The difference here is that the media knows Trump will get his ass stomped by Hillary, so they kept him in the news to increase his visibility, but held back on the real dirt until he got the nomination. Is this the same media that was laughing at Trump's presidential candidacy and his prospects for winning the nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Don't bother. LA lives in a world where the media would be posting that Cruz and Christie are the bestest candidates in the whole wide world if meany Donald didn't beat them. And you live in a world where your actually believe your candidate is the best. Believe me. The BEST!!! I talk to people. and they all agree he's the best! I feel sorry for Hillary! Disaster! SAD! In the meantime, if you spent less time being conned and more time reading my posts, you'd know I was initially a Scott Walker guy. Rick Perry as well. In the end, the difference between us is I prefer a candidate who has proven, successful experiences at the gubernatorial level, and you prefer to be conned by an orange Hanna-Barbera-like Saturday morning cartoon character whose campaign policies all end with "But hey, tomorrow I could change my mind again! It was just a suggestion!" Is this the same media that was laughing at Trump's presidential candidacy and his prospects for winning the nomination? Which media was doing that? Specifically, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) And you live in a world where your actually believe your candidate is the best. Believe me. The BEST!!! I talk to people. and they all agree he's the best! I feel sorry for Hillary! Disaster! SAD! In the meantime, if you spent less time being conned and more time reading my posts, you'd know I was initially a Scott Walker guy. Rick Perry as well. In the end, the difference between us is I prefer a candidate who has proven, successful experiences at the gubernatorial level, and you prefer to be conned by an orange Hanna-Barbera-like Saturday morning cartoon character whose campaign policies all end with "But hey, tomorrow I could change my mind again! It was just a suggestion!" I'm not conned by anybody, talk about not reading posts. Scott Walker was your candidate of choice? The one whose campaign officially lasted a whole 2 months? Sure, he would've been media bulletproof. Especially with the Ultrasound law. Would've done real well with the progressive media. Edited May 15, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 I'm not conned by anybody, talk about not reading posts. Scott Walker was your candidate of choice? The one whose campaign officially lasted a whole 2 months? Sure, he would've been media bulletproof. Especially with the Ultrasound law. Would've done real well with the progressive media. Scott Walker is the kind of person a conservative like me would support because he has a terrific track record and handily won a massive union-led recall, literally performing better in the recall than he did in the regular election. The Ultrasound law worked in Wisconsin, but even a non-thinking person knows it would never get anywhere at the federal level...nor should it. Meanwhile, it's my bad for mistaking you for a Trump supporter. I must have you confused with someone else. Which, in hind sight, makes sense as any of his supporters on this site have been too embarrassed to do anything more than post and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Scott Walker is the kind of person a conservative like me would support because he has a terrific track record and handily won a massive union-led recall, literally performing better in the recall than he did in the regular election. The Ultrasound law worked in Wisconsin, but even a non-thinking person knows it would never get anywhere at the federal level...nor should it. Meanwhile, it's my bad for mistaking you for a Trump supporter. I must have you confused with someone else. Which, in hind sight, makes sense as any of his supporters on this site have been too embarrassed to do anything more than post and run. I also really like what Scott walker did in WI and it was good to see him not back down to the bully progressives and unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I also really like what Scott walker did in WI and it was good to see him not back down to the bully progressives and unions. Yes, Walker has high on my list as well early on. Like most of the 17 candidates, he couldn't break out of the pack and was pretty bland in the early debates and campaigning. Bland didn't do well. Common sense, professionalism and substance didn't do well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Meanwhile, it's my bad for mistaking you for a Trump supporter. I must have you confused with someone else. Which, in hind sight, makes sense as any of his supporters on this site have been too embarrassed to do anything more than post and run. They reserve their right to evolve on an issue, just like the candidate. Funny how the only people on this site who aren't afraid to acknowledge their full support for the carnival barker are the resident white supremacists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) RON RADOSH: The New York Times Takes on The Donald—and Falls Flat On Its Face: Nothing Trump has done comes close to what these women accused Bill Clinton of doing, including while he was president of the United States. At the time, liberal Democrats and prominent feminists said not one thing in these women’s defense, since as they often said—Bill is on the right side of the issues, especially abortion. Indeed, one famous female journalist wrote that she would sleep with him anytime, just to thank him for supporting abortion. Read the whole thing. SALENA ZITO interviews Donald Trump. . Edited May 16, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 SALENA ZITO interviews Donald Trump. First we heard this: “I think it would be better if it were unified,” said the presumptive Republican nominee in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “And I think there would be something good about it. But I don’t think it actually has to be.” Now we hear this: “We have to put the party back together,” Trump said in an interview with the Tribune-Review. Why, it's like watching a Democrat run for office. Oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 More regarding the NYT attempt at a Trump hit piece: Why...........it's almost like they weren't really interested in the news/truth But now we have that woman, Rowanne Brewer Lane, outraged at the way the NYT told her story, which it called "a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew." Brewer Lane says: "Actually, it was very upsetting. I was not happy to read it at all," Brewer Lane said. "Well, because The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story that I was telling came across. They promised several times that they would do it accurately. They told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly, and it absolutely was not."..."They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump, and I don't appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not," Brewer Lane said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Retraction/correction at the bottom page 27 in fine print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 "Because what are we proving with that sound bite? That the Times maybe misled when it came to this woman's story," Kelly said, after Brewer Lane's comments were replayed. "But is there any dispute that Trump has used controversial language about women? There is not. There isn't. So what does that tell us about him? That's in the mind of the beholder." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kelly-no-doubt-trump-has-used-controversial-language-about-women-223210#ixzz48qRlhWgp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 And yet he promoted women to some of the highest levels, well before even thinking of running for office. Not sure how that jibes with the other claims, especially since Slick is no better, if not worse, in that department and HIlly's been enabling/standing by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 And yet he promoted women to some of the highest levels, well before even thinking of running for office. Not sure how that jibes with the other claims, especially since Slick is no better, if not worse, in that department and HIlly's been enabling/standing by him. It all comes down to having a big mouth. You say stupid things and it will come back to bite him. He's a yelper and you can't erase his comments. Lol, love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 It all comes down to having a big mouth. You say stupid things and it will come back to bite him. He's a yelper and you can't erase his comments. Lol, love it Hilly's said as many if not more stupid things. The difference is, she's got the media protecting her. The NYT just got their faces shoved in their own ****. Lol, love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Hilly's said as many if not more stupid things. The difference is, she's got the media protecting her. The NYT just got their faces shoved in their own ****. Lol, love it No, Hillary stays on message, watches her words and is a decent politician. With the right watching every word she says, she has to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 No, Hillary stays on message, watches her words and is a decent politician. With the right watching every word she says, she has to Really? You mean like the "CPT" joke, or "going off the reservation," or calling the Benghazi' victim's mother a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts