Journalists increasingly concerned for their safety at Trump rallies
61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51203347]TPP[/QUOTE]
It blows my mind that so many people have this mentality that Trump will do nothing he says he's going to do, while Clinton will do everything she says she's [i]not[/i] going to do.
We don't live in opposite land people.
Lets face it. We already know what a clinton presidency will be like.
Look at the last 20 years of her career.
Thats evidence enough of what she's going to accomplish.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51203209]This is far more reaching than CNN. Trump is wanting to control the press which is fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional. If they post something mean about him he calls it fake and scum. That's his entire stance.
He's shallow and a growing threat to the US[/QUOTE]I would think collusion between one party and the media and the rigging of the nomination of said party are more of a growing threat to the US and its "democracy" but hey, Trump sucks right? (even though he doesn't have a chance of winning at this point)
[QUOTE=The Vman;51203432]It blows my mind that so many people have this mentality that Trump will do nothing he says he's going to do, while Clinton will do everything she says she's [i]not[/i] going to do.
We don't live in opposite land people.[/QUOTE]
But she fully supports TPP. I guarantee that's the first thing she's going to do as president.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51203217]Not really. Everything he's said is so outrageous, that it would never fly if he became president.[/QUOTE]
The President isn't just involved in law-making, the President's job also involves diplomacy and, as the title "Commander in Chief" suggests, command the military in times of war.
Trump is not at all diplomat material, nor do I think he's stable enough to be trusted with making military decisions.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51203499]But she fully supports TPP. I guarantee that's the first thing she's going to do as president.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "going to do"?
Hopefully you don't think she can just approve of it with a snap of the fingers when it involves loads of countries that have a say on it too, plus there's an entire process she needs to go through to have it approved.
[QUOTE=mcharest;51203287]Trump likes and dislikes people based on how well they fulfill [I]his[/I] needs. Write a positive story about Trump, and you're a tremendous, tremendous, amazing, wonderful person. Write something negative, and you're a terrible, horrible, ugly, stupid, hateful person.
That's why all this flattery that Trump showers his supporters with at rallies is bullshit. Trump loves everyone - until he doesn't.
Frankly I'm reminded of that scene in Downfall when Hitler couldn't decide if his people were the divine master-race chosen by God, or the most pathetic scum of the earth. It's a pathological, black-and-white way of thinking that doesn't tolerate complexity or ambiguity.[/QUOTE]
This. Trump is a master kiss-ass, and if you don't reciprocate or you stand in his way, he'll do whatever it takes to talk you down, make you feel small, and other such feeble attempts at bolstering his own ego.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51203366]I'm still waiting on people to start a Luggenpresse chant.[/QUOTE]
That'd be akin to declaring Pegida and the German far-right as their brothers-in-arms.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51203217]Not really. Everything he's said is so outrageous, that it would never fly if he became president.[/QUOTE]
and yet a lot of republicans are still backing him. and with republicans taking up the majority of seats if he becomes president, you can bet your ass a lot of his shit will come to pass. taking down obamacare, decreasing the separation between church and state, getting rid of gay rights and abortions, he's all for that. and so are many republicans in office.
We're not Deplorables, Honestly!
Fucking Arsehats
Have the press actually been assaulted at Trump rallies or randomly by Trump supporters?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51203963]Have the press actually been assaulted at Trump rallies or randomly by Trump supporters?[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417"]Yes, not to mention harassment and threats.
[/URL]
[quote] Katy Tur of NBC reported in an article in Marie Claire that she had to be escorted out of a Trump rally in December by Secret Service to protect her from raging Trump supporters who had sicced on her by their candidate. She was also the primary subject of a death threat two weeks later on Twitter.
“MAYBE A FEW JOURNALISTS DO NEED TO BE WHACKED,” the tweet from someone with the handle GuyScott33 read. “MAYBE THEN THEYD STOP BEI[N]G BIASED HACKS. KILL EM ALL STARTING W/ KATY TUR.”[/quote]
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51203499]But she fully supports TPP. I guarantee that's the first thing she's going to do as president.[/QUOTE]
Clinton is against the TPP, she supports free trade deals (like any reasonable person would) but is against the TPP in particular for the exact same reasons that a lot of people online are against it.
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.[/QUOTE]
And no, she isn't flip flopping, she's changing her views as a result of new evidence, like a normal human being would.
I'm guessing you get your information about political candidates from blogs and/or web forums, you should realize that such places are incredibly biased and partisan.
If your understanding of the TPP is any indication, all of the information you have about Trump and Clinton is probably false and you need to reevaluate where you get your information.
You cannot trust anything anybody says about presidential candidates, people mindlessly repeat things that other people have said without evidence and there are political groups that literally get paid to spread misinformation online, you can't trust anyone.
I'm afraid of two things:
1.) Trump supporters go out and commit crimes after he loses
2.) Trump tries to use his money to start a media network to rival fox news and continues to drag american conservatives even further towards the authoritarian right
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51204000]I'm afraid of two things:
1.) Trump supporters go out and commit crimes after he loses
2.) Trump tries to use his money to start a media network to rival fox news and continues to drag american conservatives even further towards the authoritarian right[/QUOTE]
2 seems more likely, it seems especially Trump-ish to use whatever opportunity he can to nickle-and-dime people. Either that, or he'll start a new reality TV show.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;51203990][URL="http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417"]Yes, not to mention harassment and threats.
[/URL][/QUOTE]
I haven't heard about the targeted attack on an epileptic, that's not cool. That's taking cyberpranks a bit too far.
I was asking about physical assault or attacks though. There's tons of videos of people wearing Trump gear getting beat up by thugs or harassed as well. I haven't seen a Clinton supporter or a member of the press being attacked in the same way
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51204016]I haven't heard about the targeted attack on an epileptic, that's not cool. That's taking cyberpranks a bit too far.
I was asking about physical assault or attacks though. There's tons of videos of people wearing Trump gear getting beat up by thugs or harassed as well. I haven't seen a Clinton supporter or a member of the press being attacked in the same way[/QUOTE]
I suspect that Trump supporters aren't really that violent because they would have been around for a long time before the presidential campaign and still would have held the same beliefs they have now for years without coming up on the public radar until now. The people who are violent against Trump supporters would've already been violent individuals before the election as well.
People who hold Conspiratorial beliefs about the media tend to keep quietly to themselves within small echo-chambers of like-minded people. There are a lot of people like that and they've existed for a long time with no issues, we're only finding out about them now because of Trump and his rallies.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51204016]I haven't heard about the targeted attack on an epileptic, that's not cool. That's taking cyberpranks a bit too far.
I was asking about physical assault or attacks though. There's tons of videos of people wearing Trump gear getting beat up by thugs or harassed as well. I haven't seen a Clinton supporter or a member of the press being attacked in the same way[/QUOTE]
There's an example that I quoted of the Secret Service protecting a journalist from physical assault, along with an additional source in the last link of this post. And [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/"]attacks[/URL] [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-supporter-strikes-protester-trump-decries-deplorables-comment-n647111"]on[/URL] [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-charged-assault-tucson-rally-attack/"]Clinton[/URL] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-rally-protester-attack/"]supporters [/URL][URL="https://thinkprogress.org/trump-campaign-manager-accused-of-attacking-reporter-says-violent-supporters-are-just-passionate-c53259898d2#.ipsjoyuqw"]at[/URL] [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html"]rallies[/URL] [URL="http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/06/trump-supporters-pepper-spray-non-violent-protesters-video/"]are[/URL] [URL="http://archives.bluenationreview.com/across-america-trump-supporters-are-getting-violent-with-latinos/"]not[/URL] [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913"]uncommon[/URL] or unheard of by any means.
In case any one of these sources are not enough for you, I tried to get a diverse group of articles.
Obviously this is not the majority, but to say you've never seen it seems to imply you haven't followed news such as the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inside-trumps-inner-circle-his-staffers-are-willing-to-fight-for-him-literally/2016/03/10/4b2b18e8-e660-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html"]much publicized assault of a journalist by a previous higher up member of the Trump campaign.[/URL]
Thank you for sharing. As you can probably guess I don't visit those news sites often.
I have slightly more respect for the press to go to an area where they are hated. The distrust and hate doesn't start at Trump (certainly plays a part though), the MSM has been horribly sensationalizing their publications to skew a political agenda. Nothing is news anymore, its all pieces calling for gun control, marketing terrorism, ect. There's bias with every information source as a rule but its dissappinting to see few attempts at presenting information clearly or from two opposing views.
Wait, isn't that swastika wrong?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51204099]Thank you for sharing. As you can probably guess I don't visit those news sites often.
I have slightly more respect for the press to go to an area where they are hated. The distrust and hate doesn't start at Trump (certainly plays a part though), the MSM has been horribly sensationalizing their publications to skew a political agenda. Nothing is news anymore, its all pieces calling for gun control, marketing terrorism, ect. There's bias with every information source as a rule but its dissappinting to see few attempts at presenting information clearly or from two opposing views.[/QUOTE]
It's a common problem with any news source, it revolves around the problem that "controversy sells"- which results in a situation where people don't pay attention to media that doesn't present a spin or controversy.
For example, did you know 90% of people in the UK are in support of police body cameras (not just 90% of liberals or 90% of conservatives, but 90% of ALL people). Yet, you don't hear about it because it isn't controversial.
Food for thought:
[url]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/[/url]
[QUOTE]Some old news I only just heard about: PETA is offering to pay the water bills for needy Detroit families if (and only if) those families agree to stop eating meat.
(this story makes more sense if you know Detroit is in a crisis where the bankrupt city government is trying to increase revenues by cracking down on poor people who can’t pay for the water they use.)
Predictably, the move has caused a backlash. The International Business Times, in what I can only assume is an attempted pun, describes them as “drowning in backlash”. Groundswell thinks it’s a “big blunder”. Daily Banter says it’s “exactly why everyone hates PETA”. Jezebel calls them “assholes”, and we can all agree Jezebel knows a thing or two about assholery.
Of course, this is par for the course for PETA, who have previously engaged in campaigns like throwing red paint on fashion models who wear fur, juxtaposing pictures of animals with Holocaust victims, juxtaposing pictures of animals with African-American slaves, and ads featuring naked people that cross the line into pornography.
People call these things “blunders”, but consider the alternative. Vegan Outreach is an extremely responsible charity doing excellent and unimpeachable work in the same area PETA is. Nobody has heard of them. Everybody has heard of PETA, precisely because of the interminable stupid debates about “did this publicity stunt cross the line?”
While not everyone is a vegan, pretty much everybody who knows anything about factory farming is upset by it. There is pretty much zero room for PETA to convert people from pro-factory-farming to anti-factory-farming, because there aren’t any radical grassroot pro-factory-farming activists to be found. Their problem isn’t lack of agreement. It’s lack of publicity.
PETA creates publicity, but at a cost. Everybody’s talking about PETA, which is sort of like everybody talking about ethical treatment of animals, which is sort of a victory. But most of the talk is “I hate them and they make me really angry.” Some of the talk is even “I am going to eat a lot more animals just to make PETA mad.”[/QUOTE]
It's not so much a problem with the media, as it is a fundamental flaw in human nature that leads us to only care about the stuff that upsets us rather than the stuff we probably should be caring about.
[QUOTE=Naught;51203824]and yet a lot of republicans are still backing him. and with republicans taking up the majority of seats if he becomes president, you can bet your ass a lot of his shit will come to pass. taking down obamacare, decreasing the separation between church and state, getting rid of gay rights and abortions, he's all for that. and so are many republicans in office.[/QUOTE]
A lot of Republicans hate Trump actually. Many are considering jumping on the Clinton train.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51204218]A lot of Republicans hate Trump actually. Many are considering jumping on the Clinton train.[/QUOTE]
Did you read my previous post in response to the TPP thing?
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51204218]A lot of Republicans hate Trump actually. Many are considering jumping on the Clinton train.[/QUOTE]
The majority still support him though, and the ones that hate him aren't going to suddenly step away from the things they spent the last 2/4/6/8 years trying to achieve just because it's Trump.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51204000]I'm afraid of two things:
1.) Trump supporters go out and commit crimes after he loses
2.) Trump tries to use his money to start a media network to rival fox news and continues to drag american conservatives even further towards the authoritarian right[/QUOTE]
3.) he somehow manages to win despite everything
[QUOTE=TheHydra;51204248]3.) he somehow manages to win despite everything[/QUOTE]
this. remember brexit. remember barnsley woman. you will know what it means to be barnsleyed
It's amazingly ironic how the people that support the 2nd Amendment, an article designed to protect against authoritarian government from taking control, are supporting the exact person it was designed to defend against.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;51204648]It's amazingly ironic how the people that support the 2nd Amendment, an article designed to protect against authoritarian government from taking control, are supporting the exact person it was designed to defend against.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people tend to hate oppression because they assume they'll be the oppressed. They don't have much of an issue with being the oppressors.
[QUOTE=Zyler;51204013]2 seems more likely, it seems especially Trump-ish to use whatever opportunity he can to nickle-and-dime people. Either that, or he'll start a new reality TV show.[/QUOTE]
His campaign chair is the CEO of Breitbart, he'll probably just buy them out and put his name on it to stay relevant
edit: assuming he is actually a billionare as far as cash-on-hand goes
Now they're worried? Trump has been pretty openly hostile to the press for a long time now, he's been openly berating them during rallies since the primaries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.