San Diego Union Tribune hasn't endorsed a democrat for president in 148 years, until today

So people who get paid to deceive and manipulate don't want Trump to be president. Got it.

It's not black and white. You can write an article that is 100% (legally) factual, but is structured and worded in a way to sway(e?) the reader's opinion.

Here's an example from this very website.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/theater/sd-me-review-trumpcard-20161004-story.html

That’s because Trump has demonstrated how a candidacy that breaks all the rules (and bursts the brain cells of half the nation) can still succeed in racing right to the verge of ultimate power.

Look at this bold part. Completely unnecessary in a NEWS article. This is not an opinion piece, yet for some reason it's fine to include bullshit like this. Seriously, "breaks all the rules?" Or could they have worded it "does things differently"? Yes, they could have, but why do that when "breaks all the rules" makes him sound like a bad person?

Here's another paragraph:

Actually, that’s not quite Daisey talking in “The Trump Card”: It’s him portraying the specter of Roy Cohn, the lawyer and McCarthyist linchpin who became Trump’s attorney and longtime adviser after the government accused the developer in 1973 of racial discrimination in housing.

Could have ended the sentence before the bolded part. But, you just can't miss an opportunity to take a jab at a guy you don't want to be president!

One more example:

First of all, Daisey — who notes at the top of the show that he’s an artist and thus “a professional liar” — admits he admires Trump’s performative flair and instincts for improv.

Uh oh...Looks like this guy said something positive about Trump! Let's make sure to precede that by mentioning how he claims to be a "professional liar" so that the readers will think he's lying about the positive thing he said about Trump.

Oh, but then let's not mention how he claimed to be a professional liar before he said this...

He adds, “You’ll be shocked to learn Donald Trump is not working for your vote.”

This writer is well aware of the attention span of his readers...

Seriously, this is so EASY for me to see. I should start a website dedicated to pointing out all this bullshit.

How many bonafide criminals have we had on the ballot in that time span? That Hillary is a criminal is well known that her supporters don't care tells me why our nation is so fucked up.

Just testing to see if anybody actually reads my posts.

Does Ozone realize that the more the media endorses Clinton, the more it helps Trump right?

This would be great news for Ozone, if this campaign followed traditional rules. People trust the media less than they trust either of these candidates. During this campaign, a media endorsement of Hillary Clinton is worth nothing.

OZONE said:

greenblood said:

Does Ozone realize that the more the media endorses Clinton, the more it helps Trump right?

This would be great news for Ozone, if this campaign followed traditional rules. People trust the media less than they trust either of these candidates. During this campaign, a media endorsement of Hillary Clinton is worth nothing.

I don't think it will affect voting. I think it is a good predictor of the mood of the nation. And the mood is that Trump is such a huge dumbfuck that everybody who is anybody is against him.

The reason for these endorsements OZONE is that most of these publications were never with Trump, they just never thought he had a chance. But since polls show Trump actually has a decent chance of winning, they are in panic mode and grasping at straws to change the public's mind.

The media hasn't represented to voice of the people for years. They are just like any other business. There are a couple of influential bodies that push their agenda.

You CANT make this stuff up

OZONE said:

Tequilla said:

So let me see if I have this right ...

There are a boatload of companies, media, agencies, etc. that RARELY endorse a Presidential candidate but are in this election ...

The person that seemingly all of these people are endorsing is in a tight race with this person that is considered by so many to be unqualified for the job ...

What does that say about the other person in the race?

It says that Trump is such a fucktard, these organizations are willing to endorse a (D) to prevent him from getting close to the White House.

Great question.

That's obvious ...

But what I'm getting at is that if Trump was THAT bad why are 40-45% of the voting population dead set on voting for him?

Have you considered that to a large percentage of our population Hillary is viewed just as unfavorably and dangerous as Trump is by the other half of the population?

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Fenderbender123 said:

It's not black and white. You can write an article that is 100% (legally) factual, but is structured and worded in a way to sway(e?) the reader's opinion.

Here's an example from this very website.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/theater/sd-me-review-trumpcard-20161004-story.html

That’s because Trump has demonstrated how a candidacy that breaks all the rules (and bursts the brain cells of half the nation) can still succeed in racing right to the verge of ultimate power.

Look at this bold part. Completely unnecessary in a NEWS article. This is not an opinion piece, yet for some reason it's fine to include bullshit like this. Seriously, "breaks all the rules?" Or could they have worded it "does things differently"? Yes, they could have, but why do that when "breaks all the rules" makes him sound like a bad person?

Here's another paragraph:

Actually, that’s not quite Daisey talking in “The Trump Card”: It’s him portraying the specter of Roy Cohn, the lawyer and McCarthyist linchpin who became Trump’s attorney and longtime adviser after the government accused the developer in 1973 of racial discrimination in housing.

Could have ended the sentence before the bolded part. But, you just can't miss an opportunity to take a jab at a guy you don't want to be president!

One more example:

First of all, Daisey — who notes at the top of the show that he’s an artist and thus “a professional liar” — admits he admires Trump’s performative flair and instincts for improv.

Uh oh...Looks like this guy said something positive about Trump! Let's make sure to precede that by mentioning how he claims to be a "professional liar" so that the readers will think he's lying about the positive thing he said about Trump.

Oh, but then let's not mention how he claimed to be a professional liar before he said this...

He adds, “You’ll be shocked to learn Donald Trump is not working for your vote.”

This writer is well aware of the attention span of his readers...

Seriously, this is so EASY for me to see. I should start a website dedicated to pointing out all this bullshit.




That's an opinion piece about a play, not a news article.

HTH
Btw, ditch my avatar boobs. Its bad enough you pucker up fer purpy 24-7 , but using another mans' avatar is off limits. That borders on creepy shit. You cult HH dingo's need help

OZONE said:

Tequilla said:

OZONE said:

Tequilla said:

So let me see if I have this right ...

There are a boatload of companies, media, agencies, etc. that RARELY endorse a Presidential candidate but are in this election ...

The person that seemingly all of these people are endorsing is in a tight race with this person that is considered by so many to be unqualified for the job ...

What does that say about the other person in the race?

It says that Trump is such a fucktard, these organizations are willing to endorse a (D) to prevent him from getting close to the White House.

Great question.

That's obvious ...

But what I'm getting at is that if Trump was THAT bad why are 40-45% of the voting population dead set on voting for him?

Have you considered that to a large percentage of our population Hillary is viewed just as unfavorably and dangerous as Trump is by the other half of the population?

I'd say it breaks down roughly like this (the % below are of the Trump voting block):

25% will never vote (D) no matter what
25% will never vote for a woman, no matter what
25% hate blacks and view her as the husband of our first black prez, and SoS of our 2nd black prez
25% live in mobile homes and read the National Enquirer and watched The Apprentice on their "console TV sets" and are voting Trump because he is the only politician whose name they can remember

I won't disagree with your breakdown - it's a fairly accurate if not hurtful generalization.

But do the maff - Trump only has to snag a couple more percentage points out of the remainder who don't fall into that generalization and he's living in the White House.

OZONE said:

PurpleThrobber said:

OZONE said:

Tequilla said:

OZONE said:

Tequilla said:

So let me see if I have this right ...

There are a boatload of companies, media, agencies, etc. that RARELY endorse a Presidential candidate but are in this election ...

The person that seemingly all of these people are endorsing is in a tight race with this person that is considered by so many to be unqualified for the job ...

What does that say about the other person in the race?

It says that Trump is such a fucktard, these organizations are willing to endorse a (D) to prevent him from getting close to the White House.

Great question.

That's obvious ...

But what I'm getting at is that if Trump was THAT bad why are 40-45% of the voting population dead set on voting for him?

Have you considered that to a large percentage of our population Hillary is viewed just as unfavorably and dangerous as Trump is by the other half of the population?

I'd say it breaks down roughly like this (the % below are of the Trump voting block):

25% will never vote (D) no matter what
25% will never vote for a woman, no matter what
25% hate blacks and view her as the husband of our first black prez, and SoS of our 2nd black prez
25% live in mobile homes and read the National Enquirer and watched The Apprentice on their "console TV sets" and are voting Trump because he is the only politician whose name they can remember

I won't disagree with your breakdown - it's a fairly accurate if not hurtful generalization.

But do the maff - Trump only has to snag a couple more percentage points out of the remainder who don't fall into that generalization and he's living in the White House.

Unless some major revelation comes out between now and election day, I don't see it happening. I think Clinton's team knows which states she needs to win, to take the electoral college, and she will win all of those, and a few more.

Trump will go back to hosting a TV show loved by the National Enquirer crowd.

Yes they do seem to know the states and they've already cast thousands of Hillary votes in Ohio.