Donald Trump for President Thread

[LinekersLegs]

Have to say I'm massively anti-Trump but you're (and the author of the tweet) drawing totally wrong conclusions from that data. It runs until end of February, during which time Trump was still vying for the nomination in a rampantly toxic selection process. Clinton's was virtually a procession; so where do we expect the vast majority of the media coverage to be centred? Plus he was from outside of the political norms at that time, a hilarious novelty candidate as it were - as he should have remained.

Judging by the graphic style I suppose that's been used in the Economist - hardly going to get balanced Trump media therein.

Let's keep it honest

Oh agree that the Republican contest was far more interesting - was just pointing out that the other Republican candidates barely got any coverage.

 

[atrottel]

Where on earth have you got that from?!?!

Your words, mate:

Judging by the graphic style I suppose that's been used in the Economist - hardly going to get balanced Trump media therein.

 

[orly]

Oh agree that the Republican contest was far more interesting - was just pointing out that the other Republican candidates barely got any coverage.

But mainly for me as they represented a homogenised, bland, seen it all before brand of politics, barely worth media coverage ; which open the way to the abyss with the current candidate. The circus was in town so the media covered it.

 

[orly]

Your words, mate:

Exactly - says nowhere there about Liberal conspiracy. Quite literally, nowhere.

 

[TheFinnFan]

As a matter of interest, why are you so familiar (apparently) with politics in the USA and so one-sidedly partisan about those politics?

It is an interesting spectacle - presidental election i mean. (maybe familiar is wrong word for it...just interested.)

 

[LinekersLegs]

It isn't unheard of; ever since news became a business they prefer stories that both write themselves and are memorable. Put a Trump speech on live and it means your hacks don't have to go out and do anything - they can let him speak and then spend the next few hours / days going on about it, with viewer numbers and website hits all going through the roof. You can see the same phenomena in the way they cover terror attacks.

Speeches regularly played live, in full? Don't recall that happening with any other candiates, primarily as you say because most other politicians speeches are poor for ratings. But it got his message across to a wider audience that would have been very difficult using traditional means such as adverts.

 

[tsubaki]

Oh agree that the Republican contest was far more interesting - was just pointing out that the other Republican candidates barely got any coverage.

That is because they were nonentities, especially Rubio and Bush.

 

[dholliday]

Exactly - says nowhere there about Liberal conspiracy. Quite literally, nowhere.

you implied it, mate...maybe unwittingly, but anyone reading (and not familiar with The Economist) would assume that paper errs on the left side of things.

 

[dholliday]

Oh agree that the Republican contest was far more interesting - was just pointing out that the other Republican candidates barely got any coverage.

That is because they were nonentities, especially Rubio and Bush.

aye, Carson got a fair amount of coverage namely because of his eccentrism.

 

[TheFinnFan]

My guess based on his posting history is he doesn't like Muslims and thinks Trump will crack down on them better. Finnish people in my experience are massively anti immigration, their population is about as white and undiverse as it gets and thus they are very easy targets for fearmongering. Fear of the Unknown etc

wtf...lol

 

[orly]

you implied it, mate...maybe unwittingly, but anyone reading (and not familiar with The Economist) would assume that paper errs on the left side of things.

Not in the slightest. I wrote exactly what I meant.

The shout-down, reinterpreting nature of this thread makes it entirely one-sided; and now we've got one side eating itself!!

 

[atrottel]

Exactly - says nowhere there about Liberal conspiracy. Quite literally, nowhere.

OK, you imply that the Economist is going to publish unbalanced coverage of Trump - in other words, they are going to be biased one way or another and, given the conversation, the implication is that they are going to be biased against Trump as, so the Trump supporters claim, are the mainstream media as part of a conspiracy against their candidate.

 

[longers]

wtf...lol

What's wrong there ? You clearly dislike Muslims, I can drag up god knows how many posts showing it. You're not exactly shy about it ! You've made posts suggesting nuking the middle east ffs.

The stuff about Finalnd is backed up by evidence. It's a very anti immigration country.

 

[Caolam]

It's been pretty disappointing from the media that they've waited till now to release these tapes on Trump....they could have done this a year ago and this whole mess could have been avoided...

It is for the Party and the candidate to sort out the skeletons which may fall out of the cupboard not the press. I probably have As low opinion as anyone in regard to the gutter press but this is them doing their job. They may have a motive in choosing their moment but the point of a free press is to expose wrong doing in those who seek public office.

 

[dholliday]

The shout-down, reinterpreting nature of this thread makes it entirely one-sided; and now we've got one side eating itself!!