Trump is Really Old & Incoherent

Has anyone noticed it?

Is tNYT running article after article about this on page one?

How about article after article about his emails bring hacked by a foreign government?

No!

WTF is up with this malarkey, man.

Trapper Gus wrote:Has anyone noticed it?

Is tNYT running article after article about this on page one?

How about article after article about his emails bring hacked by a foreign government?

No!

WTF is up with this malarkey, man.

I've been saying it, i've been saying it for 8 damn years. How the media treats trump has been his greatest campaign contribution. They are going up to their old games too post-convention letting him dominate the news cycle but for things he is doing on purpose to steal attention.

Many people who are aware know this which is why MSM outlets like tNYT are losing print subscribers who are tired of all positive Trump stories all the time like crazy.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The left claims the MSM loves trump and the right claims the MSM hates Trump. I think the MSM just likes money/clicks and they don't make a big deal about his antics because there is nothing he can do at this point that would surprise anyone, and there is nothing he can do that would turn his supporters off, and everyone else knows what he is. Nothing he does anymore is really news worthy. Then again I do not watch the news, I guess this observation only covers print/online news.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The left claims the MSM loves trump and the right claims the MSM hates Trump. I think the MSM just likes money/clicks and they don't make a big deal about his antics because there is nothing he can do at this point that would surprise anyone, and there is nothing he can do that would turn his supporters off, and everyone else knows what he is. Nothing he does anymore is really news worthy. Then again I do not watch the news, I guess this observation only covers print/online news.

All you say might be true. It just shows the news media doesn't care about reporting the news as much as it cares about the dollars. Thus we have media that is not providing anything but propaganda and driving voters to vote not on fair information but on one sided profit creating stories.

As an example, in the middle of a campaign tNYT has 7 fawning stories about Trump and one critical one about Harris, yesterday.

That kind of coverage flips elections, just as the nonstop about her emails did in 2016

Old and incoherent? Sounds like half of the people here…

Trapper Gus wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The left claims the MSM loves trump and the right claims the MSM hates Trump. I think the MSM just likes money/clicks and they don't make a big deal about his antics because there is nothing he can do at this point that would surprise anyone, and there is nothing he can do that would turn his supporters off, and everyone else knows what he is. Nothing he does anymore is really news worthy. Then again I do not watch the news, I guess this observation only covers print/online news.

All you say might be true.  It just shows the news media doesn't care about reporting the news as much as it cares about the dollars.  Thus we have media that is not providing anything but propaganda and driving voters to vote not on fair information but on one sided profit creating stories.

As an example, in the middle of a campaign tNYT has 7 fawning stories about Trump and one critical one about Harris, yesterday.

That kind of coverage flips elections, just as the nonstop about her emails did in 2016

You say this like it’s some kind of surprise or something instead of how literally every single thing in America works 100% of the time.

Next thing you tell me the ncaa is going to make choices based on money not fairness

Not the world I want to use as a paradigm, I like to believe people are basically good.

It would be terrible to truely believe in the world you are painting in your post.

Trapper Gus wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The left claims the MSM loves trump and the right claims the MSM hates Trump. I think the MSM just likes money/clicks and they don't make a big deal about his antics because there is nothing he can do at this point that would surprise anyone, and there is nothing he can do that would turn his supporters off, and everyone else knows what he is. Nothing he does anymore is really news worthy. Then again I do not watch the news, I guess this observation only covers print/online news.

All you say might be true. It just shows the news media doesn't care about reporting the news as much as it cares about the dollars. Thus we have media that is not providing anything but propaganda and driving voters to vote not on fair information but on one sided profit creating stories.

As an example, in the middle of a campaign tNYT has 7 fawning stories about Trump and one critical one about Harris, yesterday.

That kind of coverage flips elections, just as the nonstop about her emails did in 2016

Links?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

All you say might be true. It just shows the news media doesn't care about reporting the news as much as it cares about the dollars. Thus we have media that is not providing anything but propaganda and driving voters to vote not on fair information but on one sided profit creating stories.

As an example, in the middle of a campaign tNYT has 7 fawning stories about Trump and one critical one about Harris, yesterday.

That kind of coverage flips elections, just as the nonstop about her emails did in 2016

Links?

Not sure what you need links to.

The emails thing is so well known that no links are needed.

tNYT coverage is clear to anyone who looks at it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Links?

Not sure what you need links to.

The emails thing is so well known that no links are needed.

tNYT coverage is clear to anyone who looks at it.

I don't think the NY Times (in general) is fawning over Trump. They may let editorials hit their website every now and then. I could be wrong...I don't read it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Links?

Not sure what you need links to.

The emails thing is so well known that no links are needed.

tNYT coverage is clear to anyone who looks at it.

What e-mails thing?  Perhaps it's not as well known as you think, because I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.

I'm asking because I went to the NYT, and to the US politics section, and looked at articles from 9/1 (since it was yesterday when you said that "yesterday", meaning Saturday, had those links.  This is what I see:

Pork Chops and Politics: Tim Walz Gets Minnesota Homecoming at State Fair
The vice-presidential nominee got a brief respite from the campaign trail to visit the venue that helped propel him to online stardom.

Trump Campaign Uses Statements From Gold Star Families to Attack Harris
It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to defend itself after the campaign defied a ban on political campaigning at Arlington National Cemetery.

In Venice, George Clooney Talks President Biden and American Politics
He also addressed the release plan for his new movie, “Wolfs,” co-starring Brad Pitt.

Tim Walz Heads Home to the Minnesota State Fair
The event, a must-stop for politicians through the years, has also been the site of some of the vice-presidential nominee’s most meme-able moments.

Harris’s Team, With a Wink, Insists She’s an Underdog
Her campaign’s message that Democrats are losing, which she never voiced when President Biden was tanking the ticket, is an artful attempt to lower expectations.

Others Have Politicized Arlington, but Trump’s Approach Has No Precedent
Donald J. Trump isn’t the first candidate to run afoul of the ban on partisan activity in Arlington National Cemetery. But no one else has responded as hostilely as his campaign has.


Now, I don't subscribe, so you can enlighten me based on your reading of the articles from your subscription. But is it that they bury their pro-Trump agenda in those articles? Because from the headlines/sub-headlines, I don't see a single article that is pro-Trump, let alone fawning over him, and I don't see a single article critical of Harris. Unless it's critical to say that her campaign is painting her as the underdog. The fawning that I see is about Tim Walz, with TWO articles in one day about him going to the Minnesota State Fair?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Not sure what you need links to.

The emails thing is so well known that no links are needed.

tNYT coverage is clear to anyone who looks at it.

What e-mails thing?  Perhaps it's not as well known as you think, because I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.

I'm asking because I went to the NYT, and to the US politics section, and looked at articles from 9/1 (since it was yesterday when you said that "yesterday", meaning Saturday, had those links.  This is what I see:

Pork Chops and Politics: Tim Walz Gets Minnesota Homecoming at State Fair
The vice-presidential nominee got a brief respite from the campaign trail to visit the venue that helped propel him to online stardom.

Trump Campaign Uses Statements From Gold Star Families to Attack Harris
It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to defend itself after the campaign defied a ban on political campaigning at Arlington National Cemetery.

In Venice, George Clooney Talks President Biden and American Politics
He also addressed the release plan for his new movie, “Wolfs,” co-starring Brad Pitt.

Tim Walz Heads Home to the Minnesota State Fair
The event, a must-stop for politicians through the years, has also been the site of some of the vice-presidential nominee’s most meme-able moments.

Harris’s Team, With a Wink, Insists She’s an Underdog
Her campaign’s message that Democrats are losing, which she never voiced when President Biden was tanking the ticket, is an artful attempt to lower expectations.

Others Have Politicized Arlington, but Trump’s Approach Has No Precedent
Donald J. Trump isn’t the first candidate to run afoul of the ban on partisan activity in Arlington National Cemetery. But no one else has responded as hostilely as his campaign has.


Now, I don't subscribe, so you can enlighten me based on your reading of the articles from your subscription. But is it that they bury their pro-Trump agenda in those articles? Because from the headlines/sub-headlines, I don't see a single article that is pro-Trump, let alone fawning over him, and I don't see a single article critical of Harris. Unless it's critical to say that her campaign is painting her as the underdog. The fawning that I see is about Tim Walz, with TWO articles in one day about him going to the Minnesota State Fair?

“Tim Walz Gets Minnesota Homecoming at State Fair”

According to Urban Dictionary, a Minnesota homecoming is anally penetrating someone with a Viking horn.

Trapper Gus wrote:Not the world I want to use as a paradigm, I like to believe people are basically good.

It would be terrible to truely believe in the world you are painting in your post.

You’re talking about public corporations, not people. Breaking news, they do in fact only care about money and the sooner you wrap your head around that the better

[tw]1830781352423150079[/tw]

[tw]1830401090183102510[/tw]

AvgMSUJoe wrote:[tw]1830781352423150079[/tw]

No it won’t be because he truthed that in 2022

Looks like some good old misinformation

Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

Trapper Gus wrote:Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

Are you talking to me?

If so, what nonsense is this

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

Are you talking to me?

If so, what nonsense is this

No.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Not the world I want to use as a paradigm, I like to believe people are basically good.

It would be terrible to truely believe in the world you are painting in your post.

You’re talking about public corporations, not people. Breaking news, they do in fact only care about money and the sooner you wrap your head around that the better

A 100% viewpoint like that cannot possibly be 100% true.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
What e-mails thing?  Perhaps it's not as well known as you think, because I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.

I'm asking because I went to the NYT, and to the US politics section, and looked at articles from 9/1 (since it was yesterday when you said that "yesterday", meaning Saturday, had those links.  This is what I see:

Pork Chops and Politics: Tim Walz Gets Minnesota Homecoming at State Fair
The vice-presidential nominee got a brief respite from the campaign trail to visit the venue that helped propel him to online stardom.

Trump Campaign Uses Statements From Gold Star Families to Attack Harris
It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to defend itself after the campaign defied a ban on political campaigning at Arlington National Cemetery.

In Venice, George Clooney Talks President Biden and American Politics
He also addressed the release plan for his new movie, “Wolfs,” co-starring Brad Pitt.

Tim Walz Heads Home to the Minnesota State Fair
The event, a must-stop for politicians through the years, has also been the site of some of the vice-presidential nominee’s most meme-able moments.

Harris’s Team, With a Wink, Insists She’s an Underdog
Her campaign’s message that Democrats are losing, which she never voiced when President Biden was tanking the ticket, is an artful attempt to lower expectations.

Others Have Politicized Arlington, but Trump’s Approach Has No Precedent
Donald J. Trump isn’t the first candidate to run afoul of the ban on partisan activity in Arlington National Cemetery. But no one else has responded as hostilely as his campaign has.


Now, I don't subscribe, so you can enlighten me based on your reading of the articles from your subscription. But is it that they bury their pro-Trump agenda in those articles? Because from the headlines/sub-headlines, I don't see a single article that is pro-Trump, let alone fawning over him, and I don't see a single article critical of Harris. Unless it's critical to say that her campaign is painting her as the underdog. The fawning that I see is about Tim Walz, with TWO articles in one day about him going to the Minnesota State Fair?

“Tim Walz Gets Minnesota Homecoming at State Fair”

According to Urban Dictionary, a Minnesota homecoming is anally penetrating someone with a Viking horn.

Yiks

Trapper Gus wrote:Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

It's ironic that you start another thread about disinformation, and then post your own disinformation, taking at 100% face value what a Democratic website says. (and make no mistake, I'm virulently anti-Trumpism above all).

Or tell me where you see that here:  https://www.nytimes.com/section/politics

And really, so when I ask for links to the 7 fawning articles on Trump and 1 article critical of Harris, your response was that links aren't needed of those because of stories the NYT did in 2016?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You’re talking about public corporations, not people. Breaking news, they do in fact only care about money and the sooner you wrap your head around that the better

A 100% viewpoint like that cannot possibly be 100% true.

It is. A public corporation is beholden to its shareholders and continued growth, not anything else. The truth, such that the truth will make less money than the fantastic lie that brings eyeballs, is less attractive.

Now, should media entities be public corporations? Well, probably not. Neither should hospitals or any number of other industries. But alas, here we are in a post Reagan America

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

It's ironic that you start another thread about disinformation, and then post your own disinformation, taking at 100% face value what a Democratic website says. (and make no mistake, I'm virulently anti-Trumpism above all).

Or tell me where you see that here:  https://www.nytimes.com/section/politics

And really, so when I ask for links to the 7 fawning articles on Trump and 1 article critical of Harris, your response was that links aren't needed of those because of stories the NYT did in 2016?

that's why it's always important to mark/clarify links as the "mainstream media".

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Source for claim...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/1/2267191/-NYTIMES-Sunday-Trump-7-stories-Harris-0-stories

Have you really forgotten the wall-to-wall coverage of "her emails" in the 2016 election cycle?

It's ironic that you start another thread about disinformation, and then post your own disinformation, taking at 100% face value what a Democratic website says. (and make no mistake, I'm virulently anti-Trumpism above all).

Or tell me where you see that here:  https://www.nytimes.com/section/politics

And really, so when I ask for links to the 7 fawning articles on Trump and 1 article critical of Harris, your response was that links aren't needed of those because of stories the NYT did in 2016?

The disinformation thread is about foreign governments.

The "above the fold" part of the link you provided supports my argument.



Three positive Trump fluffing articles and one negative article about Democratic Policy.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

A 100% viewpoint like that cannot possibly be 100% true.

It is. A public corporation is beholden to its shareholders and continued growth, not anything else. The truth, such that the truth will make less money than the fantastic lie that brings eyeballs, is less attractive.

Now, should media entities be public corporations? Well, probably not. Neither should hospitals or any number of other industries. But alas, here we are in a post Reagan America

Corporate status is conferred upon a business by state law (statute) when a state issues the business a charter of incorporation. The protective shield of corporate status enables businesses to socialize their losses in a way that traditional proprietorships and partnerships are not able to do. Socializing a loss is a means to amortize it or spread it out over society in general, so the owners do not absorb it individually. Amortization is similar to the idea behind insurance, in which many people bear a small share in a loss, rather than one or a few people bearing all of it. Therefore, it is accurate to say that society enables corporations to exist, both by passing laws that create them and by limiting the financial risk exposure of their owners. Since our society grants for-profit businesses the right to incorporate and make unlimited profits with limited liability, a reasonable person could conclude that corporations owe a debt to society in return. Corporations’ quid pro quo—a Latin term meaning this for that—is acceptance of corporate social responsibility, to benefit the many stakeholders to whom corporations may owe a duty, including customers, the community, the environment, employees, media, and the government

https://openstax.org/books/business-ethics/pages/4-1-corporate-law-and-corporate-responsibility


Edit ... meant to reply but this works for me...

Corporations who do not balance the needs of their various stakeholders don't stay in business.

Yeah man, sure, you really nailed how corporations work in reality.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
It's ironic that you start another thread about disinformation, and then post your own disinformation, taking at 100% face value what a Democratic website says.  (and make no mistake, I'm virulently anti-Trumpism above all).

Or tell me where you see that here:  https://www.nytimes.com/section/politics

And really, so when I ask for links to the 7 fawning articles on Trump and 1 article critical of Harris, your response was that links aren't needed of those because of stories the NYT did in 2016?

The disinformation thread is about foreign governments.

The "above the fold" part of the link you provided supports my argument.



Three positive Trump fluffing articles and one negative article about Democratic Policy.

The "positive Trump fluffing articles", include, just within the sub headlines alone, mentions of "embarrassing missteps, secret meetings and private misgivings", and the one about Vance says that he's attacking her with "inaccurate claims."  Oooh, that's some real fluffing.  The Youtuber article, I suppose if you think that "courting the bro vote" is considered fluff.  I don't, I think that kind of mocks them, except maybe to the "bros" social media, who aren't going to be undecided NYT readers anyway.  Either way, Trump is courting that vote.  I know you don't want them to report on news if it doesn't fit your viewpoint, but come on, that's hardly fluff.

And what about the Tax headline/sub-headline is critical of Harris?  It seems to be about how Dems have historically lost the "tax policy" debate to Republicans (which is true), and how Harris is trying to change that (also True, and sounds like it would be an article more about her tax cuts for the middle class).

As Travis was saying, yes a corporation that relies on clicks and views will highlight articles that will gain clicks and views.  And most of those clicks and views are going to be from pro-Harris people.  But if you think that will change elections, I think you're way off.  The very few true undecided voters out there pay little attention to politics, and certainly aren't NYT readers.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The disinformation thread is about foreign governments.

The "above the fold" part of the link you provided supports my argument.



Three positive Trump fluffing articles and one negative article about Democratic Policy.

The "positive Trump fluffing articles", include, just within the sub headlines alone, mentions of "embarrassing missteps, secret meetings and private misgivings", and the one about Vance says that he's attacking her with "inaccurate claims."  Oooh, that's some real fluffing.  The Youtuber article, I suppose if you think that "courting the bro vote" is considered fluff.  I don't, I think that kind of mocks them, except maybe to the "bros" social media, who aren't going to be undecided NYT readers anyway.  Either way, Trump is courting that vote.  I know you don't want them to report on news if it doesn't fit your viewpoint, but come on, that's hardly fluff.

And what about the Tax headline/sub-headline is critical of Harris?  It seems to be about how Dems have historically lost the "tax policy" debate to Republicans (which is true), and how Harris is trying to change that (also True, and sounds like it would be an article more about her tax cuts for the middle class).

As Travis was saying, yes a corporation that relies on clicks and views will highlight articles that will gain clicks and views.  And most of those clicks and views are going to be from pro-Harris people.  But if you think that will change elections, I think you're way off.  The very few true undecided voters out there pay little attention to politics, and certainly aren't NYT readers.

That’s the thing. A truly undecided voter, let’s be honest, is an idiot. A full on raging moron. 

There was a person in my local communities Facebook group today that posted a threatening phishing email that she had received saying “don’t fall for this!” Here’s the problem, it was a pdf so she had already opened a strange pdf in her email, and it had her address, so she proceeded to post her full name, address, and picture to a public Facebook group. I was befuddled by the stupidity and can’t wait for the “I was hacked!” post that is inevitably coming. 

Anyway, that person is probably an undecided voter. And an undecided voter is not swayed by issues, or logic, or reason. They are swayed by vibes. The vibes have been good for Harris, it is imperative to keep the good vibes. The vibes were bad for Trump in 2020. The vibes were bad for Hillary in 2016. It’s all vibes man.

There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes" and more viewers than not do not read the articles.

Trapper Gus wrote:There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes"  and more  viewers than not do not read the articles.

And 10x more people are not viewers at all than are viewers.

Trapper Gus wrote:There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes" and more viewers than not do not read the articles.

But virtually no one that is going to decide based on vibes is going to be a NYT reader, even of the headlines. They're getting their election "information" from TikTok and Instagram.

Thing thing DonOLD Trump has is “BE AFRAID OF THAT WOMAN” which may be the only complete sentence he can remember too.

Trapper Gus wrote:There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes" and more viewers than not do not read the articles.

R-E-L-A-X

Harris would have to do something major to screw this up.

NigelUno wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes" and more viewers than not do not read the articles.

R-E-L-A-X

Harris would have to do something major to screw this up.

I wish I had your confidence. This is far from done... especially with the cheating, any result below a 40k vote margin will be questioned.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/michigan/

NigelUno wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:There are millions of voters and millions of "whys" for how they vote.

BTW the headlines are "the vibes" and more viewers than not do not read the articles.

R-E-L-A-X

Harris would have to do something major to screw this up.

Nah, I don't think it's as easy as you're making out. The polls in the swing states (what really matters), are still very close, usually withing the margin of error.

Also, and I could be wrong here, but Kamala's margin in the swing states is less than Biden's or Hillary's were. I saw something to that effect recently. Of course, Biden won the swing states, but they were still pretty close.

Hopefully the pollsters have figured out how to account for Trumpiness. They did better in 2020 than in 2016, so they may be even better now. Enthusiasm for Trump among previous non-voters was a big part of that reason. Kamala may be inspiring some of her own previous non-voters. It's all about turnout.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

R-E-L-A-X

Harris would have to do something major to screw this up.

I wish I had your confidence. This is far from done... especially with the cheating, any result below a 40k vote margin will be questioned.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/michigan/

This link is better...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/

And the poll that shows them tied is Republican funded.

He knows.

[tw]1830983480387477933[/tw]

you can enlighten me based on your reading of the articles from your subscription. But is it that they bury their pro-Trump agenda in those articles? Because from the headlines/sub-headlines, I don't see a single article that is pro-Trump, let alone fawning over him, and I don't see a single article critical of Harris. Unless it's critical to say that her campaign is painting her as the underdog. The fawning that I see is about Tim Walz, with TWO articles in one day abo

I don't see a Pro Harris article either. If your judging presence or absence, team harris gets more mentions.