Trump's Claims that the media is behind Hillary, is laughable: In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable...

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

If the media had done its job Trump would be running against Bernie.

jack sequim wa wrote:

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit... (show quote)

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

jack sequim wa wrote:

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit... (show quote)

You are the one that is laughable.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Hemiman wrote:

You are the one that is laughable.

Read his post. You will agree.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

JFlorio wrote:

If the media had done its job Trump would be running against Bernie.

I have to agree with your speculation. And Bernie ran on a low budget relying on the public for donations instead of millions from private donors much the same as Trump. No millions from the likes of Soros, or the special interest to control the office.

How far off the cliff our society has gone to even consider Sanders.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

JFlorio wrote:

Read his post. You will agree.

You're right I didn't read it.sorry Jack.

Steve700

JFlorio wrote:

If the media had done its job Trump would be running against Bernie.

Not to mention that Trump would be way out ahead, as he should be and would be now if we had an honest unbiased media that didn't exaggerate, omit and make the news by how they slant things, what they omit and what they choose to stress and go on and on about at nausea. They don't report the news, they literally make the news by what they choose to report and how they reported. --- Like siding so much with degenerate anarchist scum like black l***s m****r instead of saying the problem is all based on excessive criminality and a lack of respect for authority within certain segments of the population. None of them, Nor the presidents, have ever said follow police directives when you're stopped and you'll go home in good health (or to jail if you have a warrant or are doing something criminal) that little fact proves they want the chaos for the purpose of revolution and martial law to complete Obama's promised Marxist t***sformation of America.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

[quote=Hemiman]

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Easy jack. He made a mistake and acknowledged it. Your thread title is a curve ball.

jack sequim wa wrote:

That's all you got? How do you think you look to the posters on OPP? Jumping on a post with nothing but a one sentence insult, void of any substance.
Evidence of simple minded l*****t, holding to deceptions, blinded to t***hs.

This isn't personal, rather a blanket response to how l*****t reply, of which your a loyal member.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

JFlorio wrote:

Easy jack. He made a mistake and acknowledged it. Your thread title is a curve ball.

I just needed to catch up.

I deleted my reply.

Thanks

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

No problem. I'm screwing up trying to do OPP and watch Ohio State game.

jack sequim wa wrote:

I just needed to catch up.

I deleted my reply.

Thanks

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

JFlorio wrote:

Easy jack. He made a mistake and acknowledged it. Your thread title is a curve ball.

You are correct and I will take my lumps with one exception,no one has ever called me a l*****t,that is a first.Once again sorry,my bad.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Hemiman wrote:

You are correct and I will take my lumps with one exception,no one has ever called me a l*****t,that is a first.Once again sorry,my bad.

Those are fighting words but all is over.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Hemiman wrote:

You are correct and I will take my lumps with one exception,no one has ever called me a l*****t,that is a first.Once again sorry,my bad.

Hey, no worries and my reply to you deleted.

Thanks, and take care

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Steve700 wrote:

Not to mention that Trump would be way out ahead, ... (show quote)

Watching all this happen before our very eyes, is much like a horror movie in slow motion, with no way out and the evil one wins, to go on to a sequel, then trilogies.
It will take direct intercession from God for Trump to win.