• CNN cuts off Chris Collins for telling the Truth about Hillary.
    140 replies, posted
wikileaks is brought up on CNN by trump surrogates all the fucking time why would they go out of their way to cut this guy's feed for talking about shit that has already been said multiple times
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51228165] Again, another genuine technical issue. She was being told that the interview was going to have to be wrapped up because the satellite window was closing but she didn't want to cut him off. Watson tweeted later thanks for the interview and appeared on CNN numerous times afterwards.[/QUOTE] I'm confused, why does the news use satellite? Wouldn't a basic internet connection work better?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228196]wikileaks is brought up on CNN by trump surrogates all the fucking time why would they go out of their way to cut this guy's feed for talking about shit that has already been said multiple times[/QUOTE] They asked him [I]what TRUMP needs to do to come out on top[/I] (of the election? the debate? whatever) and his response is "hillary clinton's a liar, she can't be trusted, the TWO FACES OF HILLARY CLINTON -". That's not an opinion, that's not an answer, that's just whining about the opposition. It feels like it was a curve ball snuck in like two steps above "random guy grabs a street reporter's mic to say 'investigate 9/11' on live camera". and CNN skirting about wikileaks isn't some weird conspiracy shit, they're probably facing real governmental pressure to not just spread confidential or unconfirmed government documentation, condemning of anybody or not
[QUOTE=dai;51228254]They asked him [I]what TRUMP needs to do to come out on top[/I] (of the election? the debate? whatever) and his response is "hillary clinton's a liar, she can't be trusted, the TWO FACES OF HILLARY CLINTON -". That's not an opinion, that's not an answer, that's just whining about the opposition, which has been this whole fucking cycle really and CNN skirting about wikileaks isn't some weird conspiracy shit, they're probably facing real governmental pressure to not just spread confidential or unconfirmed government documentation, condemning of anybody or not[/QUOTE] But this is how Trump surrogates answer literally every fucking question. Maybe I'm the only one here masochistic enough to listen to kellyanne conway, but this is practically word for word how she answers every single question she's given. And so far she hasn't been cut off, so either the shillary puppetmasters aren't doing a good job, or this is actually just a technical error.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51227991]CNN has been extensively covering the Podesta emails and the Wikileaks leaks at large, I don't see why they would go out of their way to cut Collins when he is just saying cookie cutter Republican rhetoric that they broadcast daily. She came back on later and basically said the same thing, it was a genuine technical issue.[/QUOTE] I've been watching you the past few months attacking Trump and defending Hillary, but it really seems now you're bending over backwards for her now. You're becoming as entrenched as Trump supporters, except you're on the "correct" side with many other anti-Trump people. I say this as someone who's going to vote Hillary come November, but have always had murky opinion of her, hoping she has some good. There's been a lot of things to suggest corruption, but something [i]this[/i] obvious only supports that argument. And before you say Hillary had nothing to do with this, the fact that major news organizations are unfavorable topics about Hillary makes her platform seem a lot more questionable. [editline].[/editline] I would really like something to disprove this video other than your words. Is this a regular occurrence with CNN?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228281]I've been watching you the past few months attacking Trump and defending Hillary, but it really seems now you're bending over backwards for her now. You're becoming as entrenched as Trump supporters, except you're on the "correct" side with many other anti-Trump people. I say this as someone who's going to vote Hillary come November, but have always had murky opinion of her, hoping she has some good. There's been a lot of things to suggest corruption, but something [i]this[/i] obvious only supports that argument. And before you say Hillary had nothing to do with this, the fact that major news organizations are unfavorable topics about Hillary makes her platform seem a lot more questionable.[/QUOTE] I'm not bending over backwards for Clinton, I'm defending CNN. There is no reasonable intent for them to cut the feed of someone criticizing Clinton over Wikileaks when Trump's surrogates and Republicans at large have been saying just about the exact same stuff for months.
[QUOTE=dai;51228254]and CNN skirting about wikileaks isn't some weird conspiracy shit, they're probably facing real governmental pressure to not just spread confidential or unconfirmed government documentation, condemning of anybody or not[/QUOTE] You realize what you just said is bona fide government censorship.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228281]I've been watching you the past few months attacking Trump and defending Hillary, but it really seems now you're bending over backwards for her now. You're becoming as entrenched as Trump supporters, except you're on the "correct" side with many other anti-Trump people. I say this as someone who's going to vote Hillary come November, but have always had murky opinion of her, hoping she has some good. There's been a lot of things to suggest corruption, but something [i]this[/i] obvious only supports that argument. And before you say Hillary had nothing to do with this, the fact that major news organizations are unfavorable topics about Hillary makes her platform seem a lot more questionable.[/QUOTE] why would they go out of their way to shut down this one trump surrogate talking about wikileaks this one time when there have been dozens of conversations with trump surrogates all repeating these exact same talking points uninterrupted You can make anything look plausible by cherry picking your data points. If you don't look at the context of the situation, anything can be framed as plausible.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51228295]I'm not bending over backwards for Clinton, I'm defending CNN. There is no reasonable intent for them to cut the feed of someone criticizing Clinton over Wikileaks when Trump's surrogates and Republicans at large have been saying just about the exact same stuff for months.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228310]why would they go out of their way to shut down this one trump surrogate talking about wikileaks this one time when there have been dozens of conversations with trump surrogates all repeating these exact same talking points uninterrupted You can make anything look plausible by cherry picking your data points. If you don't look at the context of the situation, anything can be framed as plausible.[/QUOTE] Then show me times where they talk about Wikileaks
Alright so vote for trump then. Clintons corrupt so vote for trump. You have a choice. Both choices suck but at differing scales. It's not like Trump isn't just as corrupt. Apathy isn't a great answer. Start getting involved in local politics. The president matters but you have more you can contribute than one vote every four years
idk who that CNN anchor is but in all the videos i've seen lately of him, he seems so full of shit for some reason. is it his face? how he says stuff? i'm not sure but goddamn a lot of what he says doesn't sound genuine at all.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51227958]If America doesn't walk away from this election in an upheaval for news and journalism reform then I've fucking had it.[/QUOTE] News is a business. There's no reason for them to reform until it impedes on profits. This election has been a gold mine for them. Anything that upsets their target audience is always going to get cut. We can complain about it all we want, but until people stop watching it, nothing will happen. People might claim that there's an ulterior political reason for this behavior, and while there may be some truth there, it's always been about the money. In an ideal world, we could count on educated citizens to research subjects on their own. Instead, the news networks are the most convenient way to stay up to date with current events, therefore people will watch it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51228325]Alright so vote for trump then. Clintons corrupt so vote for trump. You have a choice. Both choices suck but at differing scales. It's not like Trump isn't just as corrupt. Apathy isn't a great answer. Start getting involved in local politics. The president matters but you have more you can contribute than one vote every four years[/QUOTE] Now I see why people say you have a "with us or against us" attitude. I say something suggesting corruption and you lump me into the Trump camp. I'm voting for Clinton regardless because Trump is objectively the worse candidate, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize her.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228341]Now I see why people say you have a "with us or against us" attitude. I say something suggesting corruption and you lump me into the Trump camp. I'm voting for Clinton regardless because Trump is objectively the worse candidate, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize her.[/QUOTE] Everybody has this notion that its " ONE OR THE OTHER!!!" In actual fact, no confidence voting is actually a thing. If only more people realized that spoiling ballots still counts as a vote, just not for either of them, we as voters would have more power than being lumped with these two fucking whack jobs. If you don't like either? don't vote for either. When will people learn.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228341]Now I see why people say you have a "with us or against us" attitude. I say something suggesting corruption and you lump me into the Trump camp. I'm voting for Clinton regardless because Trump is objectively the worse candidate, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize her.[/QUOTE] I'm not lumping you in any camp. I'm saying if you think she's so bad, there's your other choice. Am I wrong in saying that's an actual choice you have? No. I'm not. I'm not lumping you in any camp, and I believe she's not a good choice either, but those are your choices.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228314]Then show me times where they talk about Wikileaks[/QUOTE] you mean like this? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpQK1kxKEck[/media]
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51228369]Everybody has this notion that its " ONE OR THE OTHER!!!" In actual fact, no confidence voting is actually a thing. If only more people realized that spoiling ballots still counts as a vote, just not for either of them, we as voters would have more power than being lumped with these two fucking whack jobs. If you don't like either? don't vote for either. When will people learn.[/QUOTE] People will learn based on historical precedence that it doesn't work like that. You're going to require an absolutely enormous amount of the population to not cause a spoiler vote. It isn't as simple as you make it seem. You can go ahead and act dismissive of anyone criticizing that, but it's just simple unfeasible and unrealistic. Okay, get mad that I'm stating that because it's "enforcing the view point" but realistically you need a huge, huge swath of the population to vote that way, which won't happen. Sorry to be so cynical but that's just not going to realistically happen in the US, and it's not due to people like me as you guys seem to want to pin it to.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51228392]People will learn based on historical precedence that it doesn't work like that. You're going to require an absolutely enormous amount of the population to not cause a spoiler vote. It isn't as simple as you make it seem. You can go ahead and act dismissive of anyone criticizing that, but it's just simple unfeasible and unrealistic. Okay, get mad that I'm stating that because it's "enforcing the view point" but realistically you need a huge, huge swath of the population to vote that way, which won't happen. Sorry to be so cynical but that's just not going to realistically happen in the US, and it's not due to people like me as you guys seem to want to pin it to.[/QUOTE] I understand that its more than likely asking way too much, but think about how many people are out there that hate both trump and hillary. Now think about how many of those people are going to settle for one or the other. I would just say that this election more than any other, is experiencing the biggest unsatisfactory rate of any election, on both candidate fronts. I know what you're getting at. People just wont have faith that their spoiler ballot will make a difference. And you are probably right.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51228369]Everybody has this notion that its " ONE OR THE OTHER!!!" In actual fact, no confidence voting is actually a thing. If only more people realized that spoiling ballots still counts as a vote, just not for either of them, we as voters would have more power than being lumped with these two fucking whack jobs. If you don't like either? don't vote for either. When will people learn.[/QUOTE] Regardless of how you feel, only Hillary or Trump will become the next president. Voting third party or not voting doesn't mean anything in the big picture. You have to pick your poison. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228384]you mean like this? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpQK1kxKEck[/media][/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm just asking for proof to your claims.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228414] Yeah, I'm just asking for proof to your claims.[/QUOTE] The problem is that people assume the clinton news network is working to silence trump supporters until they're proven wrong. They don't wait to be proven right. So of course it looks like CNN is part of the shillary conspiracy, since they can come up with "proof" of the collusion faster than it can be debunked.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228384]you mean like this? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpQK1kxKEck[/media][/QUOTE] Just want to mention that something like this in the video, where it mainly goes over the ethics of Wikileaks, then to CNN basically covering its ass on the debate questions, and finally finishes off with transparency of Trump vs Clinton, is some weak ass coverage on the actual content of the leaks. I didn't deny they didn't talk about Wikileaks, but I stand by they got a left-wing bias that is just as scummy as Fox on the other side.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228445]The problem is that people assume the clinton news network is working to silence trump supporters until they're proven wrong. They don't wait to be proven right. So of course it looks like CNN is part of the shillary conspiracy, since they can come up with "proof" of the collusion faster than it can be debunked.[/QUOTE] The person in your video says it best. The media does have a bias towards Hillary, but Trump is so crazy that he gets reported more. That said, it did feel like they were downplaying it a bit.
Fingers crossed for Streisand effect
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228461]Just want to mention that something like this in the video, where it mainly goes over the ethics of Wikileaks, then to CNN basically covering its ass on the debate questions, and finally finishes off with transparency of Trump vs Clinton, is some weak ass coverage on the actual content of the leaks. I didn't deny they didn't talk about Wikileaks, but I stand by they got a left-wing bias that is just as scummy as Fox on the other side.[/QUOTE] they have a left wing bias=/=they fake technical difficulties to silence the truth Of course they're fucking biased, everyone is fucking biased. That doesn't mean every time a live feed cuts out there's a conspiracy to shut down dissent.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228478]they have a left wing bias=/=they fake technical difficulties to silence the truth Of course they're fucking biased, everyone is fucking biased. That doesn't mean every time a live feed cuts out there's a conspiracy to shut down dissent.[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean I stop watching them, but I do note it when it happens. And ofcourse everything is bias, but CNN is so laughably getting in situations like this that I can't help to think it is a real life parody.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51228325]Alright so vote for trump then. Clintons corrupt so vote for trump. You have a choice. Both choices suck but at differing scales. It's not like Trump isn't just as corrupt. Apathy isn't a great answer. Start getting involved in local politics. The president matters but you have more you can contribute than one vote every four years[/QUOTE] it seems more apathetic to me to not question tbh
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228504]Doesn't mean I stop watching them, but I do note it when it happens. And ofcourse everything is bias, but CNN is so laughably getting in situations like this that I can't help to think it is a real life parody.[/QUOTE] but that's the thing, all this is is a technical mishap. This is literally nothing. It can easily be demonstrated that it's nothing. But because it fits in with the pattern your brain is trying to put together, it looks like something. This is how conspiracies form. You put together all the clips from 9/11 where people mention hearing explosions and cut out all the clips where they don't, you get the exact same sort of response.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228341]Now I see why people say you have a "with us or against us" attitude. I say something suggesting corruption and you lump me into the Trump camp. I'm voting for Clinton regardless because Trump is objectively the worse candidate, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize her.[/QUOTE] I've criticized Clinton numerous times.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;51227892]One of the reasons I hope Trump wins is that all these lefty biased, corrupt as fuck news outlets get blasted the fuck out for trying to cover up wikileak reveals about Clinton.[/QUOTE] Yeah but dw about those righty biased corrupt as fuck news outlets, as long as they agree with me it's no biggy.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228539]but that's the thing, all this is is a technical mishap. This is literally nothing. It can easily be demonstrated that it's nothing. But because it fits in with the pattern your brain is trying to put together, it looks like something. This is how conspiracies form. You put together all the clips from 9/11 where people mention hearing explosions and cut out all the clips where they don't, you get the exact same sort of response.[/QUOTE] Except you don't even know it was a technical mishap or not either, and nor can you easily demonstrate that at this moment. It's more like were at a impasse right now, but instead of even talking about the idea of media corruption, just better to label people as conspiracists right off the bat. I don't mind if it turns out that CNN has really inconvenient satellite break ups, but so far the other side hasn't even bothered to present any proof besides hearsay.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.