Media and Democrats Working On Portrayal

[Kathianne]

of the aftermath of election. Pence came out today and said that, 'of course the election results will be respected...'

Hard to get there with what Trump has been tweeting and saying at rallies this week.

What do you think? Will Trump concede IF he loses? Will he 'accept' the results so that his most ardent followers will too?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

of the aftermath of election. Pence came out today and said that, 'of course the election results will be respected...'

Hard to get there with what Trump has been tweeting and saying at rallies this week.

What do you think? Will Trump concede IF he loses? Will he 'accept' the results so that his most ardent followers will too?


Bastards trying to get promises of nobody investigating the cheating they are without doubt going to do.
Anybody that thinks this time of all the times they have cheAted wiLl be free from such corruption is either a damn moron, a fool or about as smart as a damn brick IMHO!
IT INVOLVES THE FFKING CLINTONS (BOTH ARE FFKING SHIT)-- CAN ANYBODY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT ALREADY MASSIVE CHEATING IN THE WORKS... -TYR

[Kathianne]

Bastards trying to get promises of nobody investigating the cheating they are without doubt going to do.
Anybody that thinks this time of all the times they have cheAted wiLl be free from such corruption is either a damn moron, a fool or about as smart as a damn brick IMHO!
IT INVOLVES THE FFKING CLINTONS (BOTH ARE FFKING SHIT)-- CAN ANYBODY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT ALREADY MASSIVE CHEATING IN THE WORKS... -TYR

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?

[Bilgerat]

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?


Is it a "peaceful transfer of power"

Or will it be as in the case of the DNC vs Bernie, a complete and devious stealing of the vote?

[Kathianne]

Is it a "peaceful transfer of power"

Or will it be as in the case of the DNC vs Bernie, a complete and devious stealing of the vote?

So you will NOT accept the results? Advocate taking the 'change' to rejection of results and armed rebellion?

[Drummond]

So you will NOT accept the results? Advocate taking the 'change' to rejection of results and armed rebellion?

Do you think the smear tactics being perpetrated against Trump are evidence of 'peaceful' conduct ?? Or, are they belligerent in the extreme ?

Trump should certainly contest any result that produces a narrow victory for his opposition. Considering the biases heaped on the People especially over the past couple of weeks, it'd be reasonable to argue that an election won by dirty tricks must produce a disreputable result.

Or, are you so focused on seeing Trump lose, that you somehow don't think this is an important consideration ?

[Bilgerat]

So you will NOT accept the results? Advocate taking the 'change' to rejection of results and armed rebellion?


WOW, project much?

My question was fairly simple, will it be a "peaceful transition

Or, will it be the case of the Media assisting the left's "stealing" of the vote?

[Gunny]

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?

Nope. This presidential race as well as the 2 prior gave been nothing MSM-;ed and controlled farces of what our system of representation is supposed to be.

I would concede nothing.

[Gunny]

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?

I'm going to do just what everyone else is -- whatever I want. I'm not conceding loss for the acts of others. I'm not staying home nor voting for some 3rd party nobody because my so-called individual "integrity" is more important in my mind than saving tyhe nation as a whole.

We a/ready have selective anarchy depending on skin color.

There will be no open rebellion. The right can't get its crap together and unify and win an election much less a war and the left ain't got tge balls. They'll juust knne up their back stabbing and lying and why not? We're letting them.

The real winner here is NBC/Universal.

[Bilgerat]

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?


I ask you, is the stealing of an election by the collusion of the DNC and the Lap-Dog Media a "peaceful transition of power"?

Or, is it the subjugation of that system?

[Kathianne]

I ask you, is the stealing of an election by the collusion of the DNC and the Lap-Dog Media a "peaceful transition of power"?

Or, is it the subjugation of that system?

So, you are arguing that because the media is in the bag for Hillary, as they have been for Democrats for years, that is a subjugation of the system? No. It's the media exercising their 1st amendment rights, though betraying what they purport to stand for.

Assuming you disagree, in this election, you'd support armed rebellion?

[Kathianne]

Shocked? Don't be

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/17/surprise-96-campaign-contributions-200-people-work-news-media-gone-clinton/


Surprise: 96% of campaign contributions of more than $200 by people who work in news media have gone to Clinton

POSTED AT 5:31 PM ON OCTOBER 17, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT



A well-timed release by the Center for Public Integrity (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash), not just because it backs up Trump’s complaints about the media’s rooting interest in the outcome of the election but because conservatives on Twitter spent all last night laughing at this precious tweet by WaPo’s Chris Cillizza:


<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" data-tweet-id="787801157355929600" style="padding: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; font-size: 12.16px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 520px; min-width: 220px; margin-left: 40px !important;">

Follow (https://twitter.com/TheFix)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/773232960166367232/NIAiYAg7_normal.jpgChris Cillizza
✔@TheFix (https://twitter.com/TheFix)

Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period. https://twitter.com/cocoanutcake/status/787800635395678208 … (https://t.co/dhH8eherOR)




</twitterwidget>4:43 PM - 16 Oct 2016 (https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/787801157355929600)


In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)



Caveat: CPI didn’t find the names of many national news reporters, at least at major papers or magazines, in the lists of donors released by the two campaigns. There are local reporters, there are TV and restaurant critics, there are “former journalists,” and so on, but most people in a position to influence national coverage of the election had the good ass-covering sense to keep their wallets in their pockets and not provide a smoking-gun that they’re in the tank for Clinton in the form of a campaign contribution. Many papers, e.g., the New York Times, also have an in-house policy that prohibits donations by employees for fear that it, ahem, might create “a false impression that the paper is taking sides.” The significance of the data is the obvious inference to which it lends itself: If the proportion of media people who are permitted to donate to candidates is this lopsided, what reason is there to think the proportion of those who aren’t allowed to contribute is wildly different? Refraining from donating doesn’t mean you haven’t taken a side. It means you haven’t revealed the side you’ve taken.

Frankly, if papers are hot for transparency, I think it’d be a fine idea for each of them to earmark five dollars per employee and then ask each staffer to name which candidate he/she would like to receive the fiver. (You can send mine to Evan McMullin.) Make plain your rooting interest! Even if 90 percent of the Times and Washington Post mastheads earmarked their money for Clinton, all it would do is confirm a “fact” conservatives have long believed anyway. Heck, if even 10 percent went for Trump, some righties might conclude that the newsroom is actually slightly more ideologically diverse than thought. But that system would be easy to game: Inevitably plenty of Clintonite reporters would earmark their donations for Trump, precisely so that they could point to it later when they’re accused of Democratic bias in their coverage and say, “Whaddaya mean? I donated to Trump!” It’d be the cheapest possible way to buy fake objectivity. If you want to know which way reporters are leaning, the best thing to do is to weaken the ethical prohibitions that bar them from donating in the first place. Get the Times to repeal their policy and let the most hardcore liberals enjoy their checkbook free-speech rights as fully as the rest of us. Some would still steer clear, but some wouldn’t. Every one who chips in helps undermine the silly, antiquated guild ethic of fake neutrality that no one really believes to begin with.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So if Trump loses, there should NOT be a peaceful transfer of power? That is what you are advocating?

Is the corruption and yes the open treason engaged in by the Clintons and the dem party truly =- "peaceful"?
Is the act of stealing an election, this election by any means , a peaceful act??
Is the bowing to our nation's enemies and accepting their bribes a peaceful act?
Is weakening deliberately this nation in order to curry favor (with our enemies the globalists) and gain power a peaceful act??
Is engaging in an agenda to limit ad take away our rights --a peaceful act??

Is subterfuge and treason--peaceful even if no war declared or shot has been fired??

So many questions, and nobody has all the answers --but if one looks to common decency, honesty and common sense-- the truth leads to one conclusion.
Some day-- at some point, we either take a solid stand or else we will perish in our blindness(our indifference and shallow sleep)...

Regardless- a man will protect his own..
Against any enemy--be it foreign or domestic born..

What is at play is far greater than just this election--its good against evil- and evil wins when its not opposed..
Hilary is a monster, a puppet but still a monster obeying a bigger monster-- one that seeks the destruction of this nation--of our Constitution --of our freedoms..

I advocate that a man be a man.. not a coward, not a blind foooooool.
Do not worry-- if there is ever a civil war here it will begin when the FEDS WANT IT TO BEGIN-- AND BE STARTED BY THEM!
They just want a few more years to get the odds even more in their favor IMHO....
If I knew the future , I'd won that last billion dollar lottery and we would be in Australia--deep in the interior, on a 50 sq.mile ranch--stocked with at least a decade's worth of food/supplies, etc...-- :laugh:--TYR

[Kathianne]

So we all agree, it's important to call for the peaceful transfer of power, even if one doesn't agree with the outcome? Even if one doubts the fairness of the media?