Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f−−−ing firing squad’

[Paranoid Android]

You should be thanking these polls because your candidate Trump won. These polls are one reason why people were so complacent to go out and vote thinking Hillary will win easily. If all past people actually went out to vote, Trump would have been Trumped. So as a Trump supporter you should be thanking the Media helping your candidate win!

Remember how Trump worshiped polls and during the primaries he was touting them all the time when he lead among Republicans. Trump just got butt-hurt since he was never projected to win. Actually when he was close or winning he would brag about them all the time.

Now he is acting like a whiny little bitch and gets to say "I told you say" Yes, he should be happy he just won and proved them wrong.

If he wants to bitch about his treatment that is funny onto itself. First, he received so much free advertising from CNN and even MSNBC. Second, if you want to tell me that Hillary was fairly treated on the other side, I would laugh. Third, when people finally realized Trump won the Republican candidacy, they were like; "Fuck. We better see who this guy really is".

[LaserSharkDFB]

I am quite certain that not every polling agency was reporting the same figures that day. Just the select few the media want us to see showing Clinton winning by a landslide.

And yes... once again. That is a significant fuck up. This isn't horse racing odds. You go out and ask people who they will vote for. If you only went out to downtown LA for your polling results... even if you polled 1000 people, chances are that is going to come up pretty strongly in favor of Hilary.

So again... methods, or gtfo.

- - - Updated - - -



Zing... no you!

I never said they all had the exact same numbers. In fact, if they did, that would be proof of collusion and evidence for your argument. But the vast majority of them showed similar results.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ational-polls/

That isn't a handful of polls, that's almost every poll for months before the election. You keep wanting their methodology, so feel free to take it up with that many different organizations; the burden of proof is still on you, not me.

Nate Silver has been very accurate before now, but something changed this year. Did almost every polling agency across the country deliberately manipulate their own polls, knowing that if Trump won it would call their accuracy into question and cause damage to their businesses? If so, why would they do that? Or is it that their data was skewed because Trump supporters decided not to answer surveys? Or was it something else we don't even know about?

Republicans have traditionally done better when turnout is low, and promises of a Clinton landslide would logically have driven down her numbers due to complacency. If you want to continue to claim they were lying without any proof, you need to explain why they would do that.

[dextersmith]

Already trying to control the media...

[A dot Ham]

You should be thanking these polls because your candidate Trump won. These polls are one reason why people were so complacent to go out and vote thinking Hillary will win easily. If all past people actually went out to vote, Trump would have been Trumped. So as a Trump supporter you should be thanking the Media helping your candidate win!

LOL all the past people did go out and vote and they voted for Trump instead of Hilary.

[LaserSharkDFB]

LOL all the past people did go out and vote and they voted for Trump instead of Hilary.

Yes, that's why Trump got more votes than McCain and Romney... oh, no, wait, he did worse than they did, which means you're just wrong. Again.

[A dot Ham]

I never said they all had the exact same numbers. In fact, if they did, that would be proof of collusion and evidence for your argument. But the vast majority of them showed similar results.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ational-polls/

That isn't a handful of polls, that's almost every poll for months before the election. You keep wanting their methodology, so feel free to take it up with that many different organizations; the burden of proof is still on you, not me.

Nate Silver has been very accurate before now, but something changed this year. Did almost every polling agency across the country deliberately manipulate their own polls, knowing that if Trump won it would call their accuracy into question and cause damage to their businesses? If so, why would they do that? Or is it that their data was skewed because Trump supporters decided not to answer surveys? Or was it something else we don't even know about?

Republicans have traditionally done better when turnout is low, and promises of a Clinton landslide would logically have driven down her numbers due to complacency. If you want to continue to claim they were lying without any proof, you need to explain why they would do that.

There is no burden of proof... this isn't a trial.

The media said they got bad information. We are just supposed to accept that without proof either. Fuck that.

Show us how you determined it was bad information. Claiming that people were ashamed to give truthful information is SPECULATION. So if its good for the goose... its good for the gander.

Honestly, I am little exhausted and tired of arguing with you zealots. I am gonna go home and enjoy my vacation that started an hour ago and enjoy this xenophobic white patriarchal society I have helped to maintain for the next 4 years. I might even throw my hand in my pants, because nothing says 'Murrica better than a good ol' fashioned Al Bundy dick grab.

[Thessik-Irontail]

Okay, so this is clearly a pro-Trump thread since the original post clearly shows Trump owning the corrupt mainstream media, and in typical Trump style, not holding to political correctness and telling it like it is. They are liars, they are a bunch of hacks. No one trusts the mainstream media anymore, their credibility is shot, and Trump should simply give them a middle finger as the answer to the question of how they will get access to him.

Let the alternative media cover Trump, or as he did with his last news update, go directly to the people via youtube, with his first 100 days plan.

Trump is the man, we need this kind of "cut the bullshit" attitude.

[A dot Ham]

Yes, that's why Trump got more votes than McCain and Romney... oh, no, wait, he did worse than they did, which means you're just wrong. Again.

But he had more minority support than any republican candidate in recent history, and less white support. So that kind of throws your uneducated white male (another media fabrication) win theory right out the window doesn't it.

[GennGreymane]

I am quite certain that not every polling agency was reporting the same figures that day. Just the select few the media want us to see showing Clinton winning by a landslide.

And yes... once again. That is a significant fuck up. This isn't horse racing odds. You go out and ask people who they will vote for. If you only went out to downtown LA for your polling results... even if you polled 1000 people, chances are that is going to come up pretty strongly in favor of Hilary.

So again... methods, or gtfo.

- - - Updated - - -



Zing... no you!

Burden of proof man.

[LaserSharkDFB]

There is no burden of proof... this isn't a trial.

The media said they got bad information. We are just supposed to accept that without proof either. Fuck that.

Show us how you determined it was bad information. Claiming that people were ashamed to give truthful information is SPECULATION. So if its good for the goose... its good for the gander.

Honestly, I am little exhausted and tired of arguing with you zealots. I am gonna go home and enjoy my vacation that started an hour ago and enjoy this xenophobic white patriarchal society I have helped to maintain for the next 4 years. I might even throw my hand in my pants, because nothing says 'Murrica better than a good ol' fashioned Al Bundy dick grab.

The burden of proof has nothing to do with trials; it's an issue of logical discussion and honesty. You're asking me to prove a negative, to prove that the MSM was not lying. That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.

And if you don't want to answer any of the questions I'm putting forward, we're not having an argument or even a discussion. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'LYING MSM LOL'. Go on home and enjoy your bubble.

But he had more minority support than any republican candidate in recent history, and less white support. So that kind of throws your uneducated white male (another media fabrication) win theory right out the window doesn't it.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

[Tijuana]

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/l...second-debate/

https://mediamassdeception.wordpress...g-about-trump/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...ble-landslide/







If you had a pulse during election day, every single news station was 1-2 hours behind ACTUAL results. If you were interested in up to date FACTS... you hit up google. Who had trump at the 270 mark nearly and hour and half before Fox reported the win. A fun little tidbit, despite the fact at every news station was there, everyone was looking at fox to report the win first? Now why would competing news stations be waiting on Fox unless they were in some sort of cahoots? Fishy much?

In the primaries especially the media completely snubbed Bernie Sanders, and in some cases actually took down live polling results because it was looking bad for your girl Hilary. Social media however, always had Bernie higher than both Trump and Hilary. Now why on earth would there be such a discrepancy between legitimate online polling and the fiction the news media was spinning? If nothing else... the discrepancy alone was/is worth looking into is it not? Nah... lets just ignore and keep telling people Hilary is going to win by a landslide.

At one point election day several of the stations had the win at 80:20 in favor of Hilary. But they simply received "bad information" and "bad data" that's a pretty significant fuck up. But you keep suckling them newsboys liberals... you all make fantastic puppets.

I am curious @Didactic and @GennGreymane are you purposely playing dumb? Or do you really truly have your head in the clouds? Sometimes I can't tell.

Do you even business, bro?

The media was in cahoots alright, in cahoots that the longer they take to call the election, the longer the great ratings last.

Did you notice that each of the networks had a different state they drug their feet on calling? Get real. Lol...

[Cthulhu 2020]

And for all of these people crying about the mass media, they seem to forget, the mass media is going to keep on doing what they're doing. If they don't get access to the white house press privileges, they get to make "educated guesses" about what's going on.

Trump isn't going to destroy the mass media, he's just going to keep throwing them treats.

Anyone remember what happens when the government (AKA Trump) is the only one releasing its own news? The media becomes the major investigators of the truth, since the government can't be trusted to be the sole reporter of everything it's doing.

[Tijuana]

And for all of these people crying about the mass media, they seem to forget, the mass media is going to keep on doing what they're doing. If they don't get access to the white house press privileges, they get to make "educated guesses" about what's going on.

Trump isn't going to destroy the mass media, he's just going to keep throwing them treats.

Anyone remember what happens when the government (AKA Trump) is the only one releasing its own news? The media becomes the major investigators of the truth, since the government can't be trusted to be the sole reporter of everything it's doing.

Let's hope the hatred of him will force them to resume DOING THEIR JOB. Adversarial journalism is a GOOD thing, and we have been harmed by the lack of it for 8 years.

[Jotaux]

And for all of these people crying about the mass media, they seem to forget, the mass media is going to keep on doing what they're doing. If they don't get access to the white house press privileges, they get to make "educated guesses" about what's going on.

Educated guesses sounds more accurate than the current system.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Let's hope the hatred of him will force them to resume DOING THEIR JOB. Adversarial journalism is a GOOD thing, and we have been harmed by the lack of it for 8 years.

I'm just looking forward to all of the self-identifying alt-righters to begin loving big government and lack of government transparency. The irony will be delicious. "If Trump is doing it, it must be good, right?"

[gimmemo]

But he had more minority support than any republican candidate in recent history, and less white support. So that kind of throws your uneducated white male (another media fabrication) win theory right out the window doesn't it.

No matter, he only won because people were complacent and believed Hillary was going to win. Like I said earlier, you can spin is any way you like to try to "prove" whatever you're trying to prove, but an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. Numbers don't lie. Hillary won the popular vote EVEN with the low turnout from the voters. Again you can thank the media with their Hillary poll predictions for your Trump victory.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Educated guesses sounds more accurate than the current system.

I guess everyone missed the part where Trump supporters began refusing to take part in polls because Trump proclaimed polls not to be trusted. The part where they declared polls to be untrustworthy was one of those self-fulfilling prophecies - the polls were inaccurate once they began refusing to take them, and the pollers were too slow to catch on that that was what was happening because poll participation is usually pretty low anyway.

[Tijuana]

I'm just looking forward to all of the self-identifying alt-righters to begin loving big government and lack of government transparency. The irony will be delicious. "If Trump is doing it, it must be good, right?"

I'm sure all 200 of them nationwide will provide much irony.

[Jotaux]

I guess everyone missed the part where Trump supporters began refusing to take part in polls because Trump proclaimed polls not to be trusted. The part where they declared polls to be untrustworthy was one of those self-fulfilling prophecies - the polls were inaccurate once they began refusing to take them, and the pollers were too slow to catch on that that was what was happening because poll participation is usually pretty low anyway.

I guess I missed the part where I said anything about polls and so I'm confused as to why you quoted me.

[A dot Ham]

The burden of proof has nothing to do with trials; it's an issue of logical discussion and honesty. You're asking me to prove a negative, to prove that the MSM was not lying. That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.

And if you don't want to answer any of the questions I'm putting forward, we're not having an argument or even a discussion. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'LYING MSM LOL'. Go on home and enjoy your bubble.

@GennGreymane

burden of proof
phrase of burden

1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.

You (the media) asserts that you received bad information. How... did... you... come... to... that... conclusion? Prove it.

I know this is really hard for you guys when you have grown up with this one sided liberal nonsense.