Trump Under Fire

[Mickey Finn 3,014]

On 05/02/2021 at 12:46, scotty12 said:

What about the white house lights going off every night at 10pm 

If I were President lights would be out at 10pm. Wake me up and I'll slip the dogs on you! lol

[Mickey Finn 3,014]

9 hours ago, Francie said:

You beleive what you want kes about trump,even tho hes been aquited you cant let it go ffs

 

Francie, I think the big question now is will Donald trump be prosecuted or not. 

[Born Hunter 17,782]

16 hours ago, Chaff said:

Beauty

I liked everything he said and I would likely have reacted the same after such a case but it 100% was an overreaction. She clarified exactly what he meant by 'doctored' and he lost his shit. There was no slant or bias from her.

[Greyman 28,701]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

I liked everything he said and I would likely have reacted the same after such a case but it 100% was an overreaction. She clarified exactly what he meant by 'doctored' and he lost his shit. There was no slant or bias from her.

Oh yes there was, but she had better tits than him, all there questions are choreographed to make you answer in a way they want and they try to shut you off when you go off script, don’t matter what the subject  

[Born Hunter 17,782]

3 minutes ago, Greyman said:

Oh yes there was

How so?

He mentioned "doctored evidence" and she said "to clarify for the viewers, this was....". It was totally factual. She didn't use any words to trivialise it, like "this was just/only/simply..." 

How could she have been more impartial in reporting the facts? Or should she not have mentioned what he meant by 'doctored evidence'?

[Greyman 28,701]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

How so?

He mentioned "doctored evidence" and she said "to clarify for the viewers, this was....". It was totally factual. She didn't use any words to trivialise it, like "this was just/only/simply..." 

How could she have been more impartial in reporting the facts? Or should she not have mentioned what he meant by 'doctored evidence'?

This is why this sight is so funny mate we can all watch the same thing and get a totally different opinion from it, I saw exactly what he was accusing her of and also some of the other much more manipulative reporting and editing by MSM that he has had to deal with from the start, so good on him we need more people on the telly to stop singing from the same song sheet and tell it like it is, she was trying to trivialise the fact that elected by the people for the people officials had doctored evidence in a court case to alter the outcome of the case, that could affect an entire country

[Born Hunter 17,782]

Just now, Greyman said:

This is why this sight is so funny mate we can all watch the same thing and get a totally different opinion from it, I saw exactly what he was accusing her of and also some of the other much more manipulative reporting and editing by MSM that he has had to deal with from the start, so good on him we need more people on the telly to stop singing from the same song sheet and tell it like it is, she was trying to trivialise the fact that elected by the people for the people officials had doctored evidence in a court case to alter the outcome of the case, that could affect an entire country

But how? What did she say that trivialised it? He even claimed later on that she said something that she didn't. I went back a re-watched her inflammatory words for clarity of my own.

IMO he went into that interview expecting her to behave that way and as a result manifested a fight.

She was doing her job of clarifying the events impartially. Case in point, If the examples of doctoring were instead "planting dead bodies at the scene, planting covert agents to initiate violence and staging vandalism" then no one would be accusing her of bias because those things sound bad. Whereas changing a date etc doesn't. He got pissy because the facts don't sound that bad to Joe Bloggs, not because of her wording.

IMO he's just behaved every bit as bad as what he's accused the media of. He got pissy over a simple laying out of the factual details because they don't sound that bad.

The people who he should be getting pissy with are those who would hear the facts laid out and think "oh that's not so bad". Not the person reading them out in as impartial a way as I can think.

Genuinely I ask anyone, how did she display bias?

[green lurchers 16,720]

3 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

But how? What did she say that trivialised it? He even claimed later on that she said something that she didn't. I went back a re-watched her inflammatory words for clarity of my own.

IMO he went into that interview expecting her to behave that way and as a result manifested a fight.

She was doing her job of clarifying the events impartially. Case in point, If the examples of doctoring were instead "planting dead bodies at the scene, planting covert agents to initiate violence and staging vandalism" then no one would be accusing her of bias because those things sound bad. Whereas changing a date etc doesn't. He got pissy because the facts don't sound that bad to Joe Bloggs, not because of her wording.

IMO he's just behaved every bit as bad as what he's accused the media of. He got pissy over a simple laying out of the factual details because they don't sound that bad.

The people who he should be getting pissy with are those who would hear the facts laid out and think "oh that's not so bad". Not the person reading them out in as impartial a way as I can think.

Genuinely I ask anyone, how did she display bias?

Her political bias is displayed as soon as she turns up for work lol but as we are fact checking she’s  totally innocent still don’t detract from the truth is the impeach circus was riddled with lies. , will the new president now start implementing genuine policies after the big smokescreen of theatre ? Guess hel hide behind covid before he actually will be positive to the working taxpayer ?  Trump still aloud and clear in ther minds haha must torture them as Obama foreign affairs management is back in position  Kerry lol his son and hunter still neck deep in china money  in ther holdings and they need a war to distract from the truth same ol same dem strategy 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by green lurchers

[Born Hunter 17,782]

1 minute ago, green lurchers said:

Her political bias is displayed as soon as she turns up for work lol but as we are fact checking she’s  totally innocent still don’t detract from the truth is the impeach circus was riddled with lies. , will the new president now start implementing genuine policies after the big smokescreen of theatre ? Guess hel hide behind covid before he actually will be positive to the working taxpayer ?  

I'll ask again, how were her words biased? Matey alleged that she said things that she very conclusively did not to justify his outburst. She laid out the details of "doctored evidence", as a reporter should, and he lost his shit making claims that she used words she did not to trivialise the facts. Getting behind this nonsense is as bad as the the legitimate cases of media bias.

[green lurchers 16,720]

5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I'll ask again, how were her words biased? Matey alleged that she said things that she very conclusively did not to justify his outburst. She laid out the details of "doctored evidence", as a reporter should, and he lost his shit making claims that she used words she did not to trivialise the facts. Getting behind this nonsense is as bad as the the legitimate cases of media bias.

Guess u never read wat I said lol  the clue is in “ totally innocent “ 

Edited February 15, 2021 by green lurchers

[Born Hunter 17,782]

3 minutes ago, green lurchers said:

Guess u never read wat I said lol  the clue is in “ totally innocent “ 

I did, it was just irrelevant because the reporter didn't make any claim that Trump was guilty. In fact she explicitly said he was acquitted. So I guess you didn't watch the clip, too busy on the trump train for actual facts, huh?

So I ask once again. How was she displaying bias or trivialising the facts?

Edited February 15, 2021 by Born Hunter

[green lurchers 16,720]

5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I did, it was just irrelevant because the reporter didn't make any claim that Trump was guilty. In fact she explicitly said he was acquitted. So I guess you didn't watch the clip, too busy on the trump train for actual facts, huh?

So I ask once again. How was she displaying bias or trivialising the facts?

Your not the only one who can replay the clip lol what bit of “ totally innocent “ don’t you get ? 

Edited February 15, 2021 by green lurchers

[Born Hunter 17,782]

Just now, green lurchers said:

Your not the only one who can replay the clip lol what bit of “ totally innocent “ don’t you get ? 

Do you want to make a point or just avoid actually answering anything?

What the hell are you trying to say? I completely understand "totally innocent"? Now make a point with it.....

[green lurchers 16,720]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Do you want to make a point or just avoid actually answering anything?

What the hell are you trying to say? I completely understand "totally innocent"? Now make a point with it.....

Il break it down lol I said she’s innocent from the comeback from the lawyer , which means I agree with you ya moron  

[Born Hunter 17,782]

1 minute ago, green lurchers said:

Il break it down lol I said she’s innocent from the comeback from the lawyer , which means I agree with you ya moron  

Ah fair, then I apologise.  

I honestly thought you were being sarcastic given it followed "Her political bias is displayed as soon as she turns up for work lol".

But fair, I get ya now.