November 04, 2024
Another Day, Another Twisting of Trump's Words
Timothy Birdnow
Having just failed to gin up outrage at Donald Trump by selectively editing his comments to make it appear he wanted to kill Liz Chaney with a firing squad, the media is now claiming Trump said he hoped the media would get shot
This just a day before the general election.
From the most biased ABC News article:
Doesn't this seem like a strange comment to make? The media is claiming Trump is saying THEY are his bulletproof glass but the context could equally suggest he is saying the people in attendance are his glass, his shield. That he pointed roughly in the direction where the press were in attendance - something impossible NOT to do as the press was in the crowd - never occurs to these curs. Actually I'm sure it did but fairness and acuracy do not enter into the picture with the media.
I've been hunting for the full context of this statement but cannot find anything except media hacks using the same snippet and not providing the whole comment.
Or there is this interpretation by Trump's people:
"Falsely claimed"? And they know that how? And we are to believe them why? After repeated twisting of Trump's words, and after their taking him out of context as late as just a few days ago who is it that is more likely to make false claims?
In fact Trump probably did mean to say the press was in danger as they were up front in the splash zone if Trump was hit and in the line of fire if not. And the basic point was Trump STILL isn't getting proper security from the government. Seems that point was lost on the radicals.
Why shouldn't Trump say he "wouldn't mind so much" given the way these same POS's have smeared and abused him? He wouldn't be human if he didn't harbor some animosity. So he joked a little while discussing a very serious issue - the security of the former and potentially future President of the United States.
I hope the public is now wise to the fact the media cannot tell the truth about Mr. Trump, that everything they say about him is a damnable lie. But sadly many will hear this and say "that SOB Trump is at it again!" when in fact it's the media that is at it again. And this just before election day.
In 1964 the U.S. Suprme Court gave the leftist media a get-out-of-jail-free card in their ruling New York Times v Sullivan. Essentially the radical Warren Court said that you have to prove malice aforethought and not just incorrect information; you have to prove they knowingly slandered someone and did so intentionally. It is so high a bar that the burden of proof is never met and so media gets away with saying the most ridiculous lies. (All except conservative media; Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox when they agreed to pay Dominion Voting a huge chunk of change without even trying to fight it in court, where they almost unquestionably would have won.)
Congress can probably remedy this, and most assuredly the Supreme Court could revisit the ruling and overturn it. Somebody needs to go after Sullivan.
The media should not be able to lie and distort the news for the political benefit of one and only one party.
Having just failed to gin up outrage at Donald Trump by selectively editing his comments to make it appear he wanted to kill Liz Chaney with a firing squad, the media is now claiming Trump said he hoped the media would get shot
This just a day before the general election.
From the most biased ABC News article:
"I have this piece of glass here, but all we have really over here is the fake news. And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don't mind that so much," he said at the event, just two days before Election Day.
Trump joked that such a shooting could break out "any minute now."
"They're my glass. See? Those people are my glass,” he said, pointing to the press.
Trump joked that such a shooting could break out "any minute now."
"They're my glass. See? Those people are my glass,” he said, pointing to the press.
Doesn't this seem like a strange comment to make? The media is claiming Trump is saying THEY are his bulletproof glass but the context could equally suggest he is saying the people in attendance are his glass, his shield. That he pointed roughly in the direction where the press were in attendance - something impossible NOT to do as the press was in the crowd - never occurs to these curs. Actually I'm sure it did but fairness and acuracy do not enter into the picture with the media.
I've been hunting for the full context of this statement but cannot find anything except media hacks using the same snippet and not providing the whole comment.
Or there is this interpretation by Trump's people:
Also responding to the comment, campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung falsely claimed Trump had said "nothing to do with the Media being harmed."
"There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own," Cheung said.
Cheung falsely claimed Trump was actually "stating that the Media was in danger" and that they "should have had a glass protective shield, also."
"There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own," Cheung said.
Cheung falsely claimed Trump was actually "stating that the Media was in danger" and that they "should have had a glass protective shield, also."
However, in both footage and official transcripts from the event, it is evident that Trump explicitly stated he would not "mind that so much" if reporters were shot, and laughed as his supporters cheered at his remark.
"Falsely claimed"? And they know that how? And we are to believe them why? After repeated twisting of Trump's words, and after their taking him out of context as late as just a few days ago who is it that is more likely to make false claims?
In fact Trump probably did mean to say the press was in danger as they were up front in the splash zone if Trump was hit and in the line of fire if not. And the basic point was Trump STILL isn't getting proper security from the government. Seems that point was lost on the radicals.
Why shouldn't Trump say he "wouldn't mind so much" given the way these same POS's have smeared and abused him? He wouldn't be human if he didn't harbor some animosity. So he joked a little while discussing a very serious issue - the security of the former and potentially future President of the United States.
I hope the public is now wise to the fact the media cannot tell the truth about Mr. Trump, that everything they say about him is a damnable lie. But sadly many will hear this and say "that SOB Trump is at it again!" when in fact it's the media that is at it again. And this just before election day.
In 1964 the U.S. Suprme Court gave the leftist media a get-out-of-jail-free card in their ruling New York Times v Sullivan. Essentially the radical Warren Court said that you have to prove malice aforethought and not just incorrect information; you have to prove they knowingly slandered someone and did so intentionally. It is so high a bar that the burden of proof is never met and so media gets away with saying the most ridiculous lies. (All except conservative media; Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox when they agreed to pay Dominion Voting a huge chunk of change without even trying to fight it in court, where they almost unquestionably would have won.)
Congress can probably remedy this, and most assuredly the Supreme Court could revisit the ruling and overturn it. Somebody needs to go after Sullivan.
The media should not be able to lie and distort the news for the political benefit of one and only one party.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Frankly, I wish the media would all get -- well, COVID, or something to slow 'em down a lot.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at November 05, 2024 12:51 AM (wQ5RW)
23kb generated in CPU 0.009, elapsed 0.1713 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1637 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1637 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
