By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Thuglas on 04 November 2016
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
Thuglas said:

Media collusion has never been this exposed before and it just mindboggling the extent to which they are trying to get Clinton elected even at the cost of angering their viewer base. I could provide plenty on wikileaks emails showing all major news corporations (except fox) colluding with Clinton in some way. Some of it is as bad as sending the Clinton campaign an unpublished article and asking if they want to make any changes or if it is acceptable to them. lolwut? leaking debate questions? yup. Long list of major journalists attending "off the record" dinners at John Podesta's house? That too. This isn't "opinion". Allowing Clinton campaign to edit articles and giving them debate questions is undeniable collusion (bias) and cheating respectively. What is opinion would be me to tell you to look at how CNN covers the wikileaks scandal. they always downplay the severity of the email scandal and wikileaks (conviniently ignoring the ones that involves them) and tries to scapegoat Russia every two seconds when it is obvious they aren't even involved. CNN videos are getting massively downvoted every time they cover these stories cause it is so painfully obvious they are biased. Here is CNN "losing" the feed of a republican congressman as soon as he mentions "wikileaks". also a montage of CNN and MSNBC cutting people off.

Yes, a black Trump supporter pleaded that people stop with the racist allegations and that we all should get along. The feed was cut and MSNBC anchor claims it is cause he was "black and not many Trump supporters are black so we cut that feed" basically. I used to trust these stations a month ago now I can't imaging regaining that trust for decades to come after this shitstorm.

Let's look at that clip of the black Trump supporter.  You can see in the video that he had finished talking and the mike was moving to the white guy next to him who opened his mouth to say whatever he was gonna say.  The black guy was done talking.  The reporter was tripping over her words (maybe no one told her there was an actual black Trump supporter) and when she said "cut" she meant "aired a small portion of the coverage we got in that place".  From what I have read about this incident it wasn't live footage but a recording from earlier ... however, I am not 100% sure about that; you should confirm it or disprove it if you can. 

My point in all this is that makers of YouTube videos like this have a strong agenda and many of them aren't above misleading you to get you to agree with them.  Accepting these claims uncritically is tantamount to lying to yourself. 

Yeah fair point he was done, but the thing is the reporter was "tripping over her own words" because a black Trump supporter got to speak. It just shows bias that they don't want people thinking that black people can support Trump without being Uncle Ruckus. But yeah I gave example of both hard evidence and anectdotal and the anectdotal stuff is embarassing to watch. What do you think about those Wikileaks revelations? would those not prove that the media is colluding with Clinton? I will link some of the ones I mentioned.

Politico: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524

"We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed."

 

Politico journalist to John Podesta (chairman of clinton campaign): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681

"I will send u the whole section that pertains  to u  Please don't share or tell anyone I did this  Tell me if I fucked up anything"

 

CNN - Donna Brazile obtains CNN debate question word for word early: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

"From time to time I get the questions in advance" then goes on to leak a CNN debate question to Hillary nearly word for word to cheat in debate against Bernie Sanders.

 

New York Times journalist asking for approval of an article and Clinton campaign actually does tell her to remove some things: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213

 

I understand you don't want to believe random videos on Youtube that could be editted a certain way to push a certain view, fine. But what about the things I linked above? surely you can't deny collusion after seeing hard evidence of it? and that was barely the surface of it, there are more examples I didn't link and I suggest looking at H.A Goodman's daily Youtube summary of the wikileaks revelations to get a complete picture of everything revealed in these leaks. Fox News is the only major news outlet to repport FULLY on the John Podesta Wikileaks that have been releasing everyday since about a month ago. It takes a lot of time to understand all of this meaning you will have to be willing to trust the people who have spent countless hours this last month to go through thousands of new emails every day if you want to get a complete picture. If you don't trust FOX's reporting on this issue, try H.A Goodman. If you don't trust H.A Goodman, try Stefan Moleneux.

LivingMetal said:

You know, I posted a video of two African-American females, sharing their opposing views of this political era.  Yet, there has been hardly any response because some are afraid of the truth.  The video was unedited, and both women had their equal oppotunity to say what they had to say.  It appears the scary thing to some was that it's an African-American woman who favored Trump, opposite of the stereotypes and lies that pandered to the general African-American populace that only the Democratic party cared for them.  Here's the thread in which the video was posted:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=222244&page=1#5

I read through that after you linked it.  It is sad that people literally refuse to listen because a Fox news anchor moderated that debate. The brainwashing is scary that people have been trained to trust CNN over FOX even with the ever growing mountain of hard evidence of CNN cheating/colluding/bias that simply eclipse anything against Fox recently. I want the people who commented bashing fox this, when you made that comment, what did fox's credibility have to do with those two non-Fox affiliates debating? It simply had nothing to do with the context of the conversation. But I sympathize because just a month ago I had the same mindset of "shoot down everything from Fox because they are unprofressional biased conservatives".