Has some of the National news media in general treated presidents fairly? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Has some of the National news media in general treated presidents fairly?
in News

By TKDBTKDB 84 Pts edited April 10


President's: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump?

Maybe some of these news media outlets:
CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, and or FOX News?

And when some of the Press has had an opportunity to ask a sitting President questions, have some of them, maybe gotten softball questions, verses tough and or pressing questions? 

And did some of those softball, and or pressing questions answer some of your own thought up questions, or did you feel that the given answers, didn't live up to those softball, or pressing questions?

What are your thoughts? 









Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • All of the news sources, with the exception of NPR, are extremely biased. Therefore, they pick and choose what they want to shops the world ab out this specific president.
    For example, CNN absolutely loved Obama so they didn’t want to make him look bad. So, instead of asking him the tough embarrassing questions, they stuck to shorter, simpler interviews
    CNN however absolutely hates Trump so they asked him tougher questions just waiting for him to mess up so they could show just that clip and make him look bad.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    It depends on your definition of "fairness". One could say that every single political figure is treated unfairly, compared to other people. For example, you or me have a lot of privacy in our lives, and every minor misstep on our part does not get analysed with a microscope by hundreds millions people. On the other hand, anyone more or less famous on a national scale is treading on a minefield every second of their lives.

    On the other hand, one could note that, given that the politicians are our servants, it is only fair that they relinquish their privacy and comfort when they decide to work for us, and it is our duty to criticise them for every thing they can possibly be criticised for, as well as those things that the cannot.

    I do not remember who, but, I believe, one of the Founding Fathers once said that free press is society's last line of defence from tyranny. And I agree with that. The moment the press stops being critical of our representatives is the moment that our representatives no longer are accountable for their actions.
    And that is what is great about our bipartisan system: no matter who the president is, even if half the press is covering up for his/her mistakes, the other half will point them out. It would be much worse if we had a monolithic political culture, where one set of views dominates over all other sets of views. In such case, it only takes the president to happen to have the dominating set of views for democracy to erode.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    @MayCaesar

    In regards to NPR/ PBS, I urge both of you, to go to YouTube, write NPR GOP Convention, in the search box, the GOP Conversation, day 1, comes up, and if you listen to the background, there are speech givers in the background, who appear to be getting talked over by the 6 individuals who are engaging in a squared table conversation over Hillary Clinton, and Trump. 

    And I watched the Convention, on another channel, and the news anchors were on the left hand side of the screen, and the individual speech givers and the Convention were on the right hand side of the screen, and the speeches could be heard better, when the some of the news media coverages, presented the Convention, in that type of format? 

    And from what I saw via the DNC Convention coverage, that happened some days before, the coverage was presented the opposite way? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited April 10
    @MayCaesar

    My thought, is this, who is maybe, giving this or that news anchor, the journalistic license, to get the right, to treat the words (Equal, or Fairness, in an unfair manner,) when it comes to those who go about "entertaining," verses educating and informing the viewing public, as a whole when it comes to what Original Journalism is based on: The who, what, when, where, why, and how questions, that original journalism is about?

    Along with being neutral, and unbiased, when it comes to an individual journalist, educating or informing the public as a whole when it comes to how the news is supposed to be distributed, when National news media outlet distributes it news via a 30, or 60 minute, news cast? 

    Not only have some Presidents been apparently treated unfairly, and unequally by some of the news media outlets, even the mechanism known as journalism, has been treated unfairly, and unequally, in the same light?

    That is sad.

    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    MayCaesar said:

    And that is what is great about our bipartisan system: no matter who the president is, even if half the press is covering up for his/her mistakes, the other half will point them out. It would be much worse if we had a monolithic political culture, where one set of views dominates over all other sets of views. In such case, it only takes the president to happen to have the dominating set of views for democracy to erode.
    Unfortunately, we don't have half of the press exposing mistakes of the other half of the press.  We have 90% of the media marching in lock-step, often using the same adjectives and phrases.  For example;

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    @TKDB

    This is a private market economy, and you do not get to tell people what to sell. Journalists do the work which pays well, and media companies sell the narrative which pays well. That is all there is to it. 

    If you want a different kind of journalism, then you need to go to a place like Cuba or North Korea, where journalists do not have profit in mind. Of course, there they have other things in mind, such as how to not get imprisoned for accidentally saying the wrong word, but that is what they get for telling their media what to do.

    If you want the media to be unbiased and objective (if there is even such a thing), then you have to vote with your wallet, paying only to those companies which you believe are unbiased and objective. As it is, the current media system works just as intended, with different views and ideas competing in the media space, in the end making everyone accountable. No matter who the individual is, there will be, at least, some media outlets that criticize them, and that is the best we can do - and, really, the only thing that matters.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited April 10
    @MayCaesar

    "This is a private market economy, and you do not get to tell people what to sell. Journalists do the work which pays well, and media companies sell the narrative which pays well. That is all there is to it. 

    If you want the media to be unbiased and objective (if there is even such a thing), then you have to vote with your wallet, paying only to those companies which you believe are unbiased and objective. As it is, the current media system works just as intended, with different views and ideas competing in the media space, in the end making everyone accountable. No matter who the individual is, there will be, at least, some media outlets that criticize them, and that is the best we can do - and, really, the only thing that matters."

    So you're basically telling me, that some of the news media, is in a sense being politely, held hostage by the private market economy?

    So some of the public, can tune into some of the liberal news outlets, and get fed, by some of the bias, and slanted news coverages, and get their "Daily Fix" from some of those specific news media outlets, because the news directors, producers, camera people, the writers, and the news anchors, are all owned, by the private market economy?

    Is that, maybe the gist of what you're maybe trying to imply?

    Are these private market economies, maybe owned by some of the Democrats, or Socialists Democrats, who are maybe managing things, from behind their closed doors? 

    Educate me.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    @TKDB

    I would hardly call them "held hostage", since they run multi-billion profits. As they should.

    Yes, people can tune into any outlets, based in any direction, and spend as much time consuming them as they want. This is what a free market is: it allows salesmen to decide which products to sell, and consumers to decide which products to buy.

    I fail to see what this has to do with Democrats, when this is applicable to every single individual or a political group in a free society. Maybe it is you who has some bias against Democrats, liberals or whoever it is you dislike, so you speak out against the freedom for people to consume the media supporting them. Well, tough luck. Those Democrats also might not like the media biased against them, but, just like you, they do not get to tell the market how to function.

    You will have to get used to living in a society where some people say what you do not want to hear. Or you can move to a place where you do not have to do that, although I would not recommend it. Free speech is pretty valuable, and you only realize just how valuable it is when you get to live in a society deprived of it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @TKDB

    This is a private market economy, and you do not get to tell people what to sell. Journalists do the work which pays well, and media companies sell the narrative which pays well. That is all there is to it. 

    If you want a different kind of journalism, then you need to go to a place like Cuba or North Korea, where journalists do not have profit in mind. Of course, there they have other things in mind, such as how to not get imprisoned for accidentally saying the wrong word, but that is what they get for telling their media what to do.

    If you want the media to be unbiased and objective (if there is even such a thing), then you have to vote with your wallet, paying only to those companies which you believe are unbiased and objective. As it is, the current media system works just as intended, with different views and ideas competing in the media space, in the end making everyone accountable. No matter who the individual is, there will be, at least, some media outlets that criticize them, and that is the best we can do - and, really, the only thing that matters.
    News organizations are not independent companies, they're a division of large media conglomerates.  Six companies (News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast) own 90% of the TV stations, radio stations, movies, magazines and newspapers that 277 million Americans rely on for news and entertainment.  Since these companies have many revenue streams, they're willing to take a loss from their news division which can be made up elsewhere in the organization.  There is virtually no difference between ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS news.  They all report the same stories with the same left-wing bias.  If generating revenue was a serious consideration, they'd emulate Fox news Who is consistently the news ratings leader.
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited April 11
    @MayCaesar

    I have an issue, with how any President, who gets treated with any bias, or any unfair news media outlet coverages, regardless if it's Trump, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, either of the Bush's, or whoever an individual wants to bring into the conversation?

    So if some of the media, maybe wants to hold any political representatives hand, and field softball questions with them, because they maybe favored an individual politicians political philosophy, then I guess that some of the news media outlet coverages are just a culpable, as any political representative is, with joking around with the publics perception, when it comes to how they want to inform the public as a whole, by pandering to that political representatives, individual political philosophy, and their follower/ constituent fanbase then right? 

    "You will have to get used to living in a society where some people say what you do not want to hear. Or you can move to a place where you do not have to do that, although I would not recommend it. Free speech is pretty valuable, and you only realize just how valuable it is when you get to live in a society deprived of it."

    I sometimes hear kids cussing like seasoned sailors, and I wonder how proud that their parents might be, with the mouth that their kids might be growing up with? 

    I don't have to get used to living in society where some people say what you do not want to hear, because I'm not responsible for how a kid might curse, and sound like a sailor at 8-9 or even 18 years of age? 

    Their parents get to live with, and put up with their growing kids choice of speech, right? 


    "Or you can move to a place where you do not have to do that, although I would not recommend it. Free speech is pretty valuable, and you only realize just how valuable it is when you get to live in a society deprived of it."


    Or law enforcement, might get to deal with that teenager, who turns into an adult, and maybe get to deal with his adult free speech choices, as well right?

    The above is an example of how free speech is valuable right? 

    Or how valued society is right, when various individuals abuse their freedom of speech, and then get arrested for disturbing the peace right? 

    "Free speech is pretty valuable, and you only realize just how valuable it is when you get to live in a society deprived of it."

    "And you only realize just how valuable it is when you get to live in a society deprived of it."

    Society as it is, is already deprived of free speech.

    Here are some examples of that:
    The innocent people, who have been killed, by some of the criminals, and the offenders? 

    Their families, don't get to talk with their deceased family members, now do they? 

    Prime examples of how free speech, in general, is abused, and taken from other's as well, right? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    @TKDB

    You touched a difficult topic: whether free speech means that the parents cannot control their children's speech. A lot of words can be said on this, but it is not really relevant to the discussion. Free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution is not a speech free from any consequences; it is merely a speech free from the governmental restrictions. Private companies can restrict speech among their employees, and that does not constitute a violation of free speech. Just as much, parents can try to cultivate a very specific type of speech among their children, and (at least, as of now) they can even penalise their children for not conforming with their expectations. It is the matter of families and private individuals, not that of the government.

    If you truly believe that police officers "dealing" with teenagers for cursing is a good idea, then you must have never visited a totalitarian state. Nothing good has ever come from repressing children for not conforming with the societal expectations. Socialist states have been the primary users of such an approach. Long story short: it did not work.
    Teenagers are rebellious by their nature. The more you try to force then to talk how you want them to talk, the more they will stray from this path.
    My parents have never controlled my speech. Yet I rarely curse. It was natural, it was a result of my individual development. If my parents, on the other hand, forced me to not curse, then, chances are, I would be cursing like a sailor all the time.

    Criminals have nothing to do with free speech. A person who is dead cannot speak, hence the matter of free speech is moot with regards to them. Again, I was talking about the governmental or societal control over free speech, not about these irrelevant things you bring up in every single discussion (seriously, have you ever had a discussion on this website in which you did not mention criminals, regardless of the context?). Does the government kill the people for trying to speak? No? Then this has nothing to do with the topic.

    Perhaps you should loosen up some and stop losing sleep over other people not behaving the way you want them to behave. Or other the media not treating presidents how you want them to treat them. Focus on the bigger picture, not on these immediate things.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    "Perhaps you should loosen up some and stop losing sleep over other people not behaving the way you want them to behave. Or other the media not treating presidents how you want them to treat them. Focus on the bigger picture, not on these immediate things."

    You missed the point again, because of your individual mindful philosophy.

    All you know is your way.

    And again, you alone get to live with your way, and no one else has to.

    And that is a victory, for the rest of the public as it is.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/25/hysterical-cable-news-anchors-meltdown-mueller-report-findings/

    An example of how a President, can be perceived by some of the individual news anchors? 

    Over the Mueller Report product, that was an apparent product, because of the Steele Dossier product? 
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    Some of the Internet websites, and their apparent views of the current AG Bill Barr?:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-barr-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america

    "WORRY

    Bill Barr Is the Most Dangerous Man in America"


    https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/4/10/18304627/bill-barr-trump-russia-fbi-spying-fisa?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304627/bill-barr-trump-russia-fbi-spying-fisa

    "What does Bill Barr mean when he says he’ll review US “spying” on Trump’s campaign?

    Barr voiced sympathy to some long-running conservative criticisms about the Russia probe’s handling."


    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/11/john_brennan_disappointed_in_ag_bill_barrs_spying_comments.html


    "John Brennan: "Disappointed" In AG Bill Barr's Spying Comments"

    "Former CIA Director John Brennan responds to Attorney General Bill Barr accusing the U.S. intelligence community of spying on then-candidate for president Donald Trump in an interview on MSNBC's 'Hardball' following Barr's testimony to Congress.

    Brennan said he was "disappointed" and that it is the job of U.S. intel agencies to "spy against foreign adversaries." He said Barr's testimony was nuanced to support Trump's position and acted like Trump's personal attorney at Wednesday's Senate hearing rather than the Attorney General of the United States.

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: Director, spying? Why does Trump and his cronies, including the new AG, use that word?

    JOHN BRENNAN, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: I was very disappointed in what Attorney General Bill Barr said today about spying when he was referring to the investigation that was predicated, certainly, and that the FBI was trying to understand exactly what the Russians were doing. U.S. intelligence agencies were -- spy against foreign adversaries so that we can understand the threat to our national security."


    Pelosi: AG Barr Going "Off The Rails"

    "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes plain that she doesn’t trust Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr, but that she trusts Mueller. Pelosi called it dismaying and disappointing that Barr is "going off the rails" at a press conference on Wednesday."


    AG Bill Barr: "Spying On A Political Campaign Is A Big Deal"

    "Speaking to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, Attorney General Barr said he would investigate the origins of the Mueller probe and that he believes "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016. ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: As I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to..."


    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts

    And from Fox news:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe


    "Barr testifies 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, amid reported review of informant's role"

    Attorney General Bill Barr testified Wednesday that he believes "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016, as he vowed to review the conduct of the FBI's original Russia probe -- and the focus of a related internal review shifted to the role of a key FBI informant.

    "I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. … I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane," he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, while noting that "spying on a political campaign is a big deal."

    BARR VOWS MUELLER REPORT RELEASE 'WITHIN A WEEK,' AS DEMS RIP 'UNACCEPTABLE' HANDLING AT HEATED HEARING

    The comments follow a new report that the Justice Department’s internal watchdog also is scrutinizing the role of an FBI informant who contacted members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, as part of a broader review of the early stages of the Russia investigation. The New York Times reported that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into informant Stefan Halper’swork during the Russia probe, as well as his work with the FBI prior to the start of that probe.

    BARR REVEALS HE IS REVIEWING 'CONDUCT' OF FBI'S ORIGINAL RUSSIA PROBE "

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    Some of the history on Journalism, and it's different forms:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_journalism

    "Opinion journalism is journalism that makes no claim of objectivity. Although distinguished from advocacy journalism in several ways, both forms feature a subjective viewpoint, usually with some social or political purpose. Common examples include newspaper columnseditorialsop-edseditorial cartoons, and punditry.[citation needed]

    Unlike advocacy journalism, opinion journalism has a reduced focus on facts or research and its perspective is often of a more personalized variety. Its product may be only one component of a generally objective news outlet, rather than the dominant feature of an entire publication or broadcast network.[citation needed]

    There are a number of journalistic genres that are opinion-based. Among them, for example, there is Gonzo journalism and New Journalism. "


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

    ,Journalism refers to the production and distribution of reports on recent events. The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as citizen journalists using methods of gathering information and using literary techniques. Journalistic media include print, television, radio, Internet, and, in the past, newsreels."


    "The advent of the Internet and smartphones has brought significant changes to the media landscape in recent years. This has created a shift in the consumption of print media channels, as people increasingly consume news through e-readerssmartphones, and other personal electronic devices, as opposed to the more traditional formats of newspapersmagazines, or television news channels. News organizations are challenged to fully monetize their digital wing, as well as improvise on the context in which they publish in print. Newspapers have seen print revenues sink at a faster pace than the rate of growth for digital revenues.[2] "

    "When crafting news stories, regardless of the medium, fairness and bias are issues of concern to journalists. Some stories are intended to represent the author's own opinion; others are more neutral or feature balanced points-of-view. In a print newspaper, information is organized into sections and the distinction between opinionated and neutral stories is often clear. Online, many of these distinctions break down. Readers should pay careful attention to headings and other design elements to ensure that they understand the journalist's intent. Opinion pieces are generally written by regular columnists or appear in a section titled "Op-ed", while feature stories, breaking news, and hard news stories typically make efforts to remove opinion from the copy.

    According to Robert McChesney, healthy journalism in a democratic country must provide an opinion of people in power and who wish to be in power, must include a range of opinions and must regard the informational needs of all people.[5]

    Many debates center on whether journalists are "supposed" to be "objective" and "neutral"; arguments include the fact that journalists produce news out of and as part of a particular social context, and that they are guided by professional codes of ethics and do their best to represent all legitimate points of view. Additionally, the ability to render a subject's complex and fluid narrative with sufficient accuracy is sometimes challenged by the time available to spend with subjects, the affordances or constraints of the medium used to tell the story, and the evolving nature of people's identities[6]."

    "There are several forms of journalism with diverse audiences. Thus, journalism is said to serve the role of a "fourth estate", acting as a watchdog on the workings of the government. A single publication (such as a newspaper) contains many forms of journalism, each of which may be presented in different formats. Each section of a newspaper, magazine, or website may cater to a different audience.[7][8]"

    "Some forms include:



    "Social Media

    The rise of social media has drastically changed the nature of journalistic reporting, giving rise to so-called citizen journalists. In a 2014 study of journalists in the United States, 40% of participants claimed they rely on social media as a source, with over 20% depending on microblogs to collect facts.[11] From this, the conclusion can be drawn that breaking news nowadays often stems from user-generated content, including videos and pictures posted online in social media.[11] However, though 69.2% of the surveyed journalists agreed that social media allowed them to connect to their audience, only 30% thought it had a positive influence on news credibility.[11]

    Consequently, this has resulted in arguments to reconsider journalism as a process distributed among many authors, including the socially mediating public, rather than as individual products and articles written by dedicated journalists.[12]

    Because of these changes, the credibility ratings of news outlets has reached an all-time low. A 2014 study revealed that only 22% of Americans reported a "great deal" or "quite a lot of confidence" in either television news or newspapers.[13]"

    "Fake News

    "Fake news" is also deliberately untruthful information which can often spread quickly on social media or by means of fake news websites. It is often published to intentionally mislead readers to ultimately benefit a cause, organization or an individual. A glaring example was the proliferation of fake news in social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and lies have been circulated under the guise of news reports to benefit specific candidates. One example is a fabricated report of Hillary Clinton's email which was published by a non-existent newspaper called The Denver Guardian.[14] Many critics blamed Facebook for the spread of such material. Its news feed algorithm in particular was identified by Vox as the platform where the social media giant exercise billions of editorial decisions every day.[15] Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, has acknowledged the company's role in this problem: in a testimony before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing on April 20, 2018, he said:

    It's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.[16]

    Readers can often evaluate credibility of news by examining the credibility of the underlying news organization.

    The phrase was popularized and inaccurately used by Donald Trump during his presidential campaign to discredit what he perceived as negative news coverage of his candidacy and then presidency."


    "Propaganda Compared with Fake News

    The definition of 'Fake News' above, could also be applied to the general category of 'Propaganda' when it is applied to the field of political reporting. Because a large part of political journalism involves analysis, and not simple reporting of what is said, or presented, writers and journalists have the opportunity to present specific kinds of analysis which can favor one ideological, or political position over another; it can also be used to represent personalities in favorable/unfavorable ways. If the definition of propaganda includes misrepresentation of facts, and deliberate distortions of narrative, or applied emphasis not necessarily contained in the original, then Fake News falls squarely inside the parameters of Propaganda also. It could be argued that true objectivity is not really possible to produce, when it comes to presenting analysis of political activity, any individual observer and journalist is going to perceive what they experience through the lens of their own political bias, this of course is the case with entire organizations also."



    Zombieguy1987
  • AlofRIAlofRI 152 Pts
    There are Presidents who are generally "liked", and there are those who are generally disliked. When one is liked by the majority of American's, when he (so far), is reasonable, at least TRIES to go along with majority opinion, is civil and considerate, most media will also be "fair" and most will disagree with them when they disagree.

    When one comes out and calls the media "fake news" when they AND the majority disagree with his policies, his 10,000 lies, when he calls our security personnel, our Generals "dumb", or puts our enemies above them, I really don't see where it's the MEDIA'S fault! When one claims to be smarter than our professionals, accuse them of "lying about the lying liar that is a legend in his own mind", I would say he is asking for trouble. He's getting what he is asking for. Obama, Clinton, Dubya, Reagan … all got "what they asked for". Reagan got MORE than he asked for, for a while (IMO).

    Frankly, if I was on trial, I wouldn't bad mouth the judge. This President has been on trial since the start, and has bad mouthed the judge, the cops, his own people and anyone who disagreed with him. It's HIM that is not fair, not the media!
    CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited April 11
    @AlofRI

    And by Mrs. Clinton pulling her political stunt with Bernie Sanders, along with her email snafus?

    Her individual followers, constituents, or group fanbase got mad at Trump, for what Hillary did, by derailing her own chance to become the POTUS, because of her own actions? 

    Hillary lost the Election by her own choices, so maybe her followers, constituents, or fanbase have been spending a vast amount of time, being upset at the wrong person? 

    Do you recall what happened the night of the Election? 

    (When Obama won his Elections, some of the media, had him winning the Election, by either 11pm, or 1130pm EST?)

    But with the Election between Clinton and Trump, some of the media, held off on declaring Trump the winner, and 11pm rolled around, nothing happened, 1130pm rolled around, nothing happened?

    I roughly believe that Trump had 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227? 

    Yet, for some reason, some didn't want to make the call, declaring Trump the winner?

    And Hillary didn't make an official statement, until the next day? 

    So when some get upset at Trump, and the Election, I'm reminded by how the Election was treated, by some via their individual philosophies.

    Trumps not the only individual on trial, is he?

    And every time Pelosi or Schumer say something, how are they not, in a sense putting themselves on trial as well, before the "other court of public opinion," who are watching the same news media coverages, but, who aren't Democrat, or Socialist Democrat oriented, right along with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and so on? 

    "When one comes out and calls the media "fake news" when they AND the majority disagree with his policies, his 10,000 lies, when he calls our security personnel, our Generals "dumb", or puts our enemies above them, I really don't see where it's the MEDIA'S fault! When one claims to be smarter than our professionals, accuse them of "lying about the lying liar that is a legend in his own mind", I would say he is asking for trouble. He's getting what he is asking for. Obama, Clinton, Dubya, Reagan … all got "what they asked for". Reagan got MORE than he asked for, for a while (IMO).

    Frankly, if I was on trial, I wouldn't bad mouth the judge. This President has been on trial since the start, and has bad mouthed the judge, the cops, his own people and anyone who disagreed with him. It's HIM that is not fair, not the media!"

    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch