The Trump Crime Family

^^^ 3 up.......... Serious, you do not think that mainstream media is not pro left? Get you head out of the sand, shit happens in Canada concerning left wing and it is a little blip, Trudeau groped someone, fucking nothing, refugees rape people fucking nothing. In the US Trump is pictured not holding his wife's hand and holy fuck it is main stream news. The media in the US knows the left are mwdia sheep, they gobble it up and want more, th media feeds them more bull shit and they eat it up. CBC here i Canada was to be shut down by Harper ( fucking money pit for the taxayers ) but Justine our feminist POS threw millions at them, guess who they support?
A pipeline rupture was thought to happen in Canada recently, Enbridge shut the pipeline down, it was found to be no rupture but the rag that is called the Star ( complete left wing ) still reported that is was the pipeline fault, not reporting some farmer dumped some gas in a ditch. Gullible people read left wing news, Washington Post is a complete waste of time to read if you want real facts along with many other US papers. Can sure see where some people get their news from.

sambuca said:

You're actually shopping the "liberal press" is a myth here on MERB. I don't know if you deliberately try to manipulate people you know orrrrr should I type slowwwweeeeerrrrrrrr for you to undddderrrrrsttttttaaaaandddddd. Capisce!

There has been empirical evidence that most newsrooms carry a heavy bias towards the Democrats.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sts-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the MERB membership is not intelligent enough to discern that the mainstream press runs pretty much down the middle and is so tuned into Faux News as to be blinded by their bullshit?

Perhaps a little history lesson. Waaaay back in the '90s, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, et al, were full time on the Clinton controversies, some real, some manufactured. Still, CNN owned them full time, 24-7. Move a few years ahead to GW Bush's phony manufactured war with Iraq and all of a sudden, CNN became PNN, or Pentagon News Network, the war's #1 cheerleader.

The media was no friend to Barack Obama, but he was, unlike Consigliere Trump, well aware that the fourth estate has a job to do and unlike the current President* never made any attempt to undermine the constitution.

And to back up your argument, you quote the Washington Examiner, an admittedly right wing publication. Nice try.

I'm saying either you are not intelligent enough to discern that the mainstream press runs pretty much left -or- you think most readers here are too stupid to discern the noticeable liberal bent of U.S. media. You won't find any support for your thesis. I also don't see the point of discussing the waaaay things were twenty years ago.

Obama was treated with kid gloves by most of the U.S. media. And yes, he bitched and moaned about Fox News who was the only network regularly critical (and overly critical) of him. You take a complex piece of legislation like Obamacare (overly complexed in my opinion). It was (and is) hard to get objective information about Obamacare's mechanics including how the insurance pools were performing. Some of the criticism of Obama from far left commentators was his reluctance to move further left (i.e. single-payer, carbon credits, etc.).

In regards to the Washington Examiner, I cannot find the liberal outlets reporting on their own bias. However, there have been many media political spectrum charts that have circulated the internet. Almost all of them acknowledge the ideological bent of the major news outlets. The charts themselves of course can have their own bias.

The naked eye and ear can see and hear the difference between Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon and Sean Hannity. MSNBC and CNN hype up a Blue Wave in November. Fox News talks about Republicans gains in the Senate and muted Blue gains in the House.

Lesley Stahl looks amazing for a 76 year old woman. I`d probably not kick her out of bed.

CS, you'd be the one on the floor.

If you Trump haters don't think all politicians are self-absorbed idiots, did you see the stunt Elizabeth Warren pulled yesterday? Besides the fact that her party is in a serious fight for control of Congress in 22 days, she goes and double downs on this inane Native American claim she's perpetuated for years.

She had a scant trace of Native American. Something like 6 to 10 generations back. Warren was acting like it was a badge of honor. The woman has no sense to understand no one is going to nominate her for or elect her President.

I think you are dwelling on this because you think this Saudi incident is some kind of black eye for Trump and the U.S. I assure you this will be forgotten down here in a couple weeks. It won't impact political campaigns one way or another.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship goes back many decades, runs deep and transcends Trump. There's the business aspect, but there is also the important matter of global energy stability and security.

Mohammed Bin Salman is probably not the young, enlightened future of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps he would bring some reform, but more than likely he's a greedy, paranoid leader with despotic tendencies. Does the current Saudi royal structure and government warrant Western rationalization? Did it ever warrant Western rationalization? Saudi Arabia and much of the Mideast has always been a moral dilemma for the West.

I'm not sure if people want to believe that evil doesn't exist around the world or they just want to try to forget it. A great deal of the planet is controlled by brutal people. We've seen the spotlight has been focused on Russia, but you can put China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other countries in the same category. I have near-term hope for Russia as I think eventually Russians will wake-up and realize they are getting hosed.

Senator Elizabeth Warren sat down with Senator Dick Blumenthal to discuss her pending Presidential bid.

Elizabeth: I proved to everyone I was part Native American.

Dick: You know Liz, I fought with Sitting Bull at Little Bighorn.

Sambuca, it gets forgotten if the press decides to forget it. Benghazi stuck around for years. Vince Foster even longer. I still saw people mention Whitewater in 2016.

If this sticks around it becomes an issue, regardless of the merits.

Dismemberment straight out of a thriller has the kind of appeal that even the easily distracted press might stick around for.

(Probably not, as I mentioned on the other thread, MBS hasn't had anything stick before.)

Bailing Out Teddy Cruz

Does anyone remember when Teddy "Grandpa Munster" Cruz butted heads with Trump at the Republican candidates debate? Now Teddy has had to call in the Trump attack dog with his senatorial re-election polls showing dwindling leads over his challenger:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-rally-texas/index.html

Ted Cruz is a lock against Beto the $70 million man. Campaigns like Texas will further prove that more and more money means less and less in a general election.

Valcazar said:

Sambuca, it gets forgotten if the press decides to forget it. Benghazi stuck around for years. Vince Foster even longer. I still saw people mention Whitewater in 2016.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any traction on this Saudi execution. It hasn't caught any buzz on Facebook where you get a sense of issues taking form beyond mass media hyperbole. You need both an incident and someone to blame. So far, Trump isn't being blamed by people on the street. From my part of the country, most Americans just accept barbarism in that part of the world. Perhaps you're average NY Times reader gets all upset.

Americans aren't going to get all misty-eyed about green energy simply because the Saudis are a barbaric government.

^^^^^^^ Nothing will happen and the story will die, if the story is not more important than a 18 yr old slapping his dick someones face, a first lady not holding her husbands hand or Taylor Swift picking a political party you have nothing..... Just let it go.

STN,
While it's certainly not fake news, it could be called forced news. I just don't think Liberals understand how much news is manipulated or manufactured. The liberal media can create a strong feedback loop that doesn't resonate beyond true believers.

Sambuca, I wouldn't call Cruz a lock. 2016 should remind everyone that any poll with strong undecideds shouldn't be taken for granted. But I would be surprised if O'Rourke snuck in a victory. He really has never been closer than 5 points. It was a solid run but it was always a huge longshot.

As for the MBS thing, I don't think anyone is going to be Trump unless something comes out about him being involved which seems unlikely. The fact that the story has had such legs is interesting, since normally the media sweeps Saudi stuff under the rug quickly. I think the KSA/USA relationship isnanlotnweaker than it once was - back in the day this would have been a one day story.

Using Facebook is a bad way to judge word on the street because its algorithm filters you into bubbles. It reinforces true believers only.

Grandpa Munster Has No Personality

The Houston Chronicle saying that Ted Cruz has a "repellant personality" does not help his cause:

http://deadstate.org/ted-cruzs-home...e-cruzs-repellent-personality-hamstrings-him/

Grandpa Munster was far more beloved than this.

Valcazar, you're dismissing the entire point that the liberal media is trying to keep this Saudi incident on the table as long as possible hoping it somehow it sticks to Trump. Their effort is failing. Clara has brought up Trump and the Saudis several times on separate matters. I don't think she (and even some young journalists) realize how deep and long the U.S.-Saudi relationship goes. It transcends the Trump Administration and it goes back many decades.

As far as Facebook, I read far more liberal posts than conservative posts. I don't think I have more liberal friends than conservative friends, but my liberal friends are angrier and more motivated. Since none of them has taken the bait on the Saudi execution, I can make an anecdotal observation that the story is not resonating with them.

I think Trump gets a pass on Saudi Arabia because the Saudis have been coddled by every single Administration without exception for many years. The theory that Trump somehow emboldened them to engage in an absurdly reckless “broad daylight” murder isn’t one that I am buying, although I don’t believe that is what is motivating media coverage of this case. It’s that a journalist was killed rather brazenly. One of the media’s own. And it’s an interesting international news story.

Eager, are you trying to have a reasonable approach with Trump? Hmmm, I suspect ulterior motives.

Perhaps, the Saudi murder has international intrigue. There are several brazen political executions of journalists every year that don't get much coverage. There's the recent murder of a female Bulgarian journalist who uncovered embezzlement of European Union funds granted to Bulgaria. The patsy that the Bulgarians have set up for her murder seems all too convenient.