Posted on 10/16/2016 6:30:52 AM PDT by Hojczyk
What transpired was foundationally different: Most of Trump’s speech focused on specific problems facing the people of New Hampshire and the United States, and the steps a Trump administration would take to address them.
The Republican presidential candidate spoke at length about the opiate addiction ravaging New Hampshire. He called for lifting the limit on prescriptions for medication-assisted treatment drugs doctors can write, an important, intricate fix. He also decried the way Chinese drug manufacturers are moving deadly fentanyl into and around the United States.
As the crowd was leaving, a man said: “Now that I saw it myself, I want to go home and see how it looks on CNN.” I knew what he meant.
It is possible for these two things to be true at the same time: that Trump is an inappropriate candidate for president, and the coverage of him is at times unfairly negative, if only by omission.
It is also possible for these two things to be true at the same time: that Clinton is the most appropriate candidate for the office, and the coverage of her is at times unfairly positive, if only by omission.
Beyond possible, it may even be likely all four of these things are true. And if that’s the case, then the premise of Trump’s (and Bernie Sanders’) campaigns were true all along, and the game won’t change as long as voters elect the people who wrote the rules and shuffled the cards in the first place.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
What a load of crap!
“...the premise of Trump’s (and Bernie Sanders’) campaigns was true all along, and the game won’t change as long as voters elect the people who wrote the rules and shuffled the cards in the first place.”
Load of crap?
You mean this?
“And if that’s the case, then the premise of Trump’s (and Bernie Sanders’) campaigns were true all along, and the game won’t change as long as voters elect the people who wrote the rules and shuffled the cards in the first place.”
That’s one sentence. There are no clear precedents for “that” or “the premises of...”
It is dizzying
Long Island. Wacko
That word-salad is what passes for logic in liberal camps? You can’t make head or tale of if.
Filler: Buy a Powerball ticket, it's not such a bad investment
Cute picture of him at the link. /s
Imagine what Clintoon looks like when Huma helps her out of bed about noon time. I’ll bet she looks really “confused”.
Media whoredom is peddling a meme. Any way they can get folks to swallow the crap sandwich they’re being served is now fair journolistism.
I think it is good that a leftist journalist has their head turned around about the reality of his presentation and does not know how to express it.
If anyone talks AND ENGAGES an audience for 2-3 hours in a day you can pull out 60 seconds to make them look however you want (good, bad, disqualified). Hillary could read a teleprompter for 3 hours (not physically, but in theory) and you probably couldn’t find 60 seconds that were different from the rest. You also couldn’t find an audience that cared after 30 minutes.
Trump engages the audience. He entertains. He exaggerates to make points (OMG he’s unfit for office since Hillary has been alive longer than ISIS has been around). He talks to people in our language - which is often imprecise and rarely understood by those “better than us”.
I’ve been to a Trump rally and yes, he does seem different in person than the 60 seconds I saw in the news of his 70+ minute speech/show I went to.
"Trump estimated the crowd at 7,000 – New Hampshire police said it was closer to 3,000 – and there wasn’t a whit of “deplorable” behavior. No racism, no sexism, no xenophobia, not even any nasty T-shirts, at least by current standards. Nor was there a surly or aggrieved mood coursing through the pack. Folks were upbeat, there to have a good time"
This is because Hillary's campaign got busted claiming over 18,000 for her on the Ohio State Campus the day after the second debate. It turns out it was only 3,000 plus per Ohio State Police Department. Moreover, every liberal professor on campus offered their students credit to attend the rally. There are some online videos of the students, and when asked if they supported Hillary. Most said they were only there for class credit or did not follow politics.
So little putz filler is playing that card. What a jack a$$.
I have a friend who saw him and said he is even better in person.
This guy (the author) is the enemy of Liberty.
Put him on the list for when the time comes.
There’s gotta be another gun in there for FNC
If you read it I think not. The author tells how Trump spent most of his time talking specifically about issues in the campaign but that the media only plays a sniper of him saying something to defend himself. I think that is a good analysis
I agree that it was a decent analysis from someone who admitted that he drove 300-miles because he thought that, “after a week of “Access Hollywood” tape replays and sexual assault allegations, Trump might finally be ready to completely blow his stack, start roaring and foaming and biting the heads off of members of the media.”
So he admitted right off where he was coming from and then said that the media reported it completely different than what actually happened. It is a good observation and some of us shouldn’t be quite so quick to condemn those who are starting to see the truth despite their preconceived notions.
If you control what the people see and hear then you control what they think.
It’s one of the basic rules of propaganda.
True words
maybe I should read the whole article!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.