Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Fake news history (Read 563 times)
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 130891
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #15 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 10:27am
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 10:03am:
aquascoot wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 9:32am:
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:30am:
Murdock backed Trump the instant he showed a chance of winning. This idea that Trump had no media support is Fake News.

Now that Trump is not guaranteed a second term, he's hedging his bets and letting some on Fox report it how it is on Trump, calling out his lies and no longer spinning his failures for him.

The fact that those who support Trump, and Trump himself sees this slightly less favourable coverage as attacking him shows just how much support Fox was giving him all this time, and how used to it they all became.

"Trump is amazing, Trump is a genius"

Trump has been exploited by the real deep state to distract the people's attention away from them, from day one. And now that he's imploding, they're getting ready to move on.



Sorry Skippy but that's just not true
The vast majority of the media was hostile to trump before the election and has been hostile to trump since the election
They keep covering him because the public want to read about it
It's non-stop coverage along the lines of trump trump trump
It's actually non-stop coverage along the lines of trump is bad trump is bad trump is bad

That's why you need to study him
Because everybody hates the guy
Everybody in power that is

And that makes all the little people identify with him
Pure genius on trump's part

You should study that for about 5 years


Define "hostile to Trump"?

I have people complaining when he gets fact checked as media bias.  He lies at a rally and gets called out for it, that's not media bias, that's the media doing their job.

So what do you mean by hostile to Trump?


I predict you won't get a straight answer.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #16 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:15pm
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:30am:
Murdock backed Trump the instant he showed a chance of winning. This idea that Trump had no media support is Fake News.


Trump has been exploited by the real deep state to distract the people's attention away from them, from day one. And now that he's imploding, they're getting ready to move on.



Indeed. And Elizabeth Warren is running on just this agenda - removing the corruption in campaign funding and media bias.

Did you know? Fox News was only able to be created when a law was changed that required broadcast news to present two sides to a story. It was started by Murdoch as a Republican mouthpiece.

Murdoch never supported a clown like Trump running for president. He came around after seeing how obsequious Trump is. Yes, Donald Trump sucks up to Murdoch. Which politician doesn't? Trump, however, is more obsequious than most. He regularly calls Murdoch for his advice - on all policy areas.

This is the game Warren wants to end - the "conservative" think tanks drafting legislation, the lobbyists within government, the huge political donations and skewed media outlets like Fox, who act as the megaphone of this process.

It's all based on big money and influence, it has nothing to do with democracy. It's why Trump stacked his cabinet with industry lobbyists and ideologues.

Trump promised he would be different, but as Warren calls it, he's the very embodiment of corporate self-interest. As a billionaire not collecting a salary, Trump pretended he'd be above the game, but he's been unashamedly profiting from his administration. Imagine receiving a directive like the top military brass get - stay at the local Trump hotel. Imagine what you'd think after years of slashed budgets and cost-cutting at the lower end. And Trump justifies it by saying being president is costing him billions in lost income - what's wrong with getting a few million back?

Warren is getting this message out - the message that Trump voters lapped up when Trump promised to drain the swamp. Wealth inequality, tax cuts for the mega-rich, corporate lobbyists running Washington, corporate donors running the country. Trump has only strengthened this. Warren promises to do something about it.

Can this narrative win over any Trump voters who want to see real change, or have they become even more disheartened by lying politicians?

If Warren's nominated, it may be the answer to this question that determines the next erection.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:35pm by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
aquascoot
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 32657
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #17 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:28pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:15pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:30am:
Murdock backed Trump the instant he showed a chance of winning. This idea that Trump had no media support is Fake News.


Trump has been exploited by the real deep state to distract the people's attention away from them, from day one. And now that he's imploding, they're getting ready to move on.



Indeed. And Elizabeth Warren is running on just this agenda - removing the corruption in campaign funding and media bias.

Did you know? Fox News was only able to be created when a law was changed that required broadcast news to present two sides to a story. It was started by Murdoch as a Republican mouthpiece.

It could easily become a Democrat mouthpiece if Murdoch favoured a Democrat candidate, like Hillary, for example.

Problem is, its audience would tune out if this ever happened, and Fox would lose that audience to the internet - possibly for good. Murdoch has always been more financially than ideologically motivated, hence his support of Trump when the Fox audience polled their support.

Murdoch never supported a clown like Trump. He came around after seeing how obsequious Trump is. Yes, Donald Trump sucks up to Murdoch. Which politician doesn't?

This is the game Warren wants to end - the "conservative" think tanks drafting legislation, the lobbyists within government, the huge political donations and skewed media outlets like Fox, who act as the megaphone of this process.

It's all based on big money and influence, it has nothing to do with democracy at all. It's why Trump stacked his cabinet with industry lobbyists and ideologues.

Trump promised he would be different, but as Warren calls it, he's the very embodiment of corporate self-interest. As a billionaire not collecting a salary, Trump pretended he'd be above the game, but he's been unashamedly profiting from his administration. Imagine receiving a directive like the top military brass get - stay at the local Trump hotel. Imagine what you'd think after years of slashed budgets and cost-cutting at the lower end. And Trump justifies it by saying being president is costing him billions in lost income - what's wrong with getting a few million back?

Warren is getting this message out - the message that Trump voters lapped up when Trump promised to drain the swamp. Wealth inequality, tax cuts for the mega-rich, corporate lobbyists running Washington. Corporate donors running the country. Trump has only strengthened it. Warren promises to do something about it.

Can this narrative win over any Trump voters who want to see real change, or have they become even more disheartened by lying politicians?

This may well be the idea that gets people voting in 2020.



nope, sorry. you are wrong.

the dems greatly outspent trump at the last election and most of the media run non stop "trump is bad" stories.

trumps campaign strategy is NOT based on a big media spend.

it is based on making the public cynical about the media.
and the media behaving the way they do, they make this task easier
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #18 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 4:18pm
 
Sorry again, Aquascoot, you're mistaken. Like everything else the master manipulator does, it's pretend. The Republicans spend just as much on advertising as the Democrats, but they have another three advantages: Fox News, the NRA and Russia.

All 3 of these paid for advertising in the last erection. Putin alone is estimated to have spent 60 mil - all on social media.

The Fox advantage is hard to calculate. After all, their advertising comes from their commentators, who run entire programs praising Mr Trump and condemning his political rivals. They consult with the Trump communications team to craft the message.

Hillary spent more on TV advertising. The Trump campaign does this too, but it aims to dominate social media, which is far easier to funnel undeclared donations through.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Richdude
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8457
NC
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #19 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 1:17am
 
SerialBrain9 wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 8:34am:
What Rich is reporting in 100% spot on.

I really do wish you ignorant fools would learn your history.

Seriously 

Any Wonder you follow the Fake News Media and the Clintons/DNC like the Pied Piper Roll Eyes


Yes they are lost souls - too bad. Fantasy is what they have and hunger for more. Too much drugs and soul destroying perversions leads to insanity.

They buy whatever the corrupt press instruct them. Mindlocked!

Best to bring some enlightenment to the bright undamaged ones.
Back to top
 

The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
 
IP Logged
 
Richdude
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8457
NC
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #20 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 1:28am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:15pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:30am:
Murdock backed Trump the instant he showed a chance of winning. This idea that Trump had no media support is Fake News.


Trump has been exploited by the real deep state to distract the people's attention away from them, from day one. And now that he's imploding, they're getting ready to move on.



Indeed. And Elizabeth Warren is running on just this agenda - removing the corruption in campaign funding and media bias.

Did you know? Fox News was only able to be created when a law was changed that required broadcast news to present two sides to a story. It was started by Murdoch as a Republican mouthpiece.

Murdoch never supported a clown like Trump running for president. He came around after seeing how obsequious Trump is. Yes, Donald Trump sucks up to Murdoch. Which politician doesn't? Trump, however, is more obsequious than most. He regularly calls Murdoch for his advice - on all policy areas.

This is the game Warren wants to end - the "conservative" think tanks drafting legislation, the lobbyists within government, the huge political donations and skewed media outlets like Fox, who act as the megaphone of this process.

It's all based on big money and influence, it has nothing to do with democracy. It's why Trump stacked his cabinet with industry lobbyists and ideologues.

Trump promised he would be different, but as Warren calls it, he's the very embodiment of corporate self-interest. As a billionaire not collecting a salary, Trump pretended he'd be above the game, but he's been unashamedly profiting from his administration. Imagine receiving a directive like the top military brass get - stay at the local Trump hotel. Imagine what you'd think after years of slashed budgets and cost-cutting at the lower end. And Trump justifies it by saying being president is costing him billions in lost income - what's wrong with getting a few million back?

Warren is getting this message out - the message that Trump voters lapped up when Trump promised to drain the swamp. Wealth inequality, tax cuts for the mega-rich, corporate lobbyists running Washington, corporate donors running the country. Trump has only strengthened this. Warren promises to do something about it.

Can this narrative win over any Trump voters who want to see real change, or have they become even more disheartened by lying politicians?

If Warren's nominated, it may be the answer to this question that determines the next erection.


You're so naive Karnal!

You have a degree in political science yet don't understand. I on the other hand remember growing up in a home that had pollies walking in and out of daily. I know politicians - you have ideology!

Elizabeth Warren says all these good things but does another. Big Pharma is one of her greatest contributors, she frenetically says she must defeat Trump at all costs - that includes contributions from all sources. She's weak!

She's just the same old BS politician that have come and gone forever.
Back to top
 

The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
 
IP Logged
 
Richdude
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8457
NC
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #21 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 1:46am
 
AiA wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 5:37am:
Richdude wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:33am:
AiA wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:05am:
Oh, a fake YouTube video.



No a real Youtube video.

Commented on by a fake poster!

Get ready fellow Ozpolsters. This is a very contentious issue and undermines the deep states most useful tools.

The power to manipulate public opinion.


Read a book, loser. One that wasn't written by a FOX News personality.


Aww that hurts! You and Marla are so mean!

Her's a cartoon to make you feel better!

DNC - Legion of dumb!


Back to top
 

The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Fake news history
Reply #22 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 11:21am
 
Richdude wrote on Sep 20th, 2019 at 1:28am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:15pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:30am:
Murdock backed Trump the instant he showed a chance of winning. This idea that Trump had no media support is Fake News.


Trump has been exploited by the real deep state to distract the people's attention away from them, from day one. And now that he's imploding, they're getting ready to move on.



Indeed. And Elizabeth Warren is running on just this agenda - removing the corruption in campaign funding and media bias.

Did you know? Fox News was only able to be created when a law was changed that required broadcast news to present two sides to a story. It was started by Murdoch as a Republican mouthpiece.

Murdoch never supported a clown like Trump running for president. He came around after seeing how obsequious Trump is. Yes, Donald Trump sucks up to Murdoch. Which politician doesn't? Trump, however, is more obsequious than most. He regularly calls Murdoch for his advice - on all policy areas.

This is the game Warren wants to end - the "conservative" think tanks drafting legislation, the lobbyists within government, the huge political donations and skewed media outlets like Fox, who act as the megaphone of this process.

It's all based on big money and influence, it has nothing to do with democracy. It's why Trump stacked his cabinet with industry lobbyists and ideologues.

Trump promised he would be different, but as Warren calls it, he's the very embodiment of corporate self-interest. As a billionaire not collecting a salary, Trump pretended he'd be above the game, but he's been unashamedly profiting from his administration. Imagine receiving a directive like the top military brass get - stay at the local Trump hotel. Imagine what you'd think after years of slashed budgets and cost-cutting at the lower end. And Trump justifies it by saying being president is costing him billions in lost income - what's wrong with getting a few million back?

Warren is getting this message out - the message that Trump voters lapped up when Trump promised to drain the swamp. Wealth inequality, tax cuts for the mega-rich, corporate lobbyists running Washington, corporate donors running the country. Trump has only strengthened this. Warren promises to do something about it.

Can this narrative win over any Trump voters who want to see real change, or have they become even more disheartened by lying politicians?

If Warren's nominated, it may be the answer to this question that determines the next erection.


Elizabeth Warren says all these good things but does another. Big Pharma is one of her greatest contributors,


That's what I suspected, Rich. Warren is saying all the right things. And yes, we'll see if she falls prey to the usual vested interests if she ever reaches office.

I haven't read about "big pharma" - would you like to elaborate? As far as I can tell, Warren's health policy is Medicare for all, like we have in Australia.

So yes, I can see why the big health insurers would be on board. In the US, any state-funded health cover will almost certainly be private.

But I'm curious. Do you think Warren saying all the right things policy-wise can undermine the Trump Pocahontas strategy? Mr Trump has two assaults on Warren - her Indian heritage and allegations of socialism, the old one-two punch.

As far as I can see from Australia, the Pocohontas thing's gone stale. Mr Trump will get a few chants out of it at his rallies, but he's not keeping up with Warren's policies.

Fox News will run the socialist angle, but this is starting to seem a bit weak now that Mr Trump has been running with socialist trade policies. Unlike Sanders, Warren's never described herself as a socialist. She may well be able to take the freemarket angle in opposition to Mr Trump. She may win the debate on economic issues.

And amongst the more liberal Democrats, the socialist stamp may well get a few out to vote.

Mr Trump has done the hard yards of turning his base away from free trade. He's softened the electorate to interventionist policies. Republicans have gone along with this. 4 years ago, Mr Trump's protectionist anti-globalist rhetoric ran counter to everything Republicans stood for. It's become increasingly difficult for Fox to scoff at "socialists" when their own man has effectively paved the way.

Have I left anything out here? Is there anything else Mr Trump can get Warren with?

Personally, I think Mr Trump's attacks on Biden have much more resonance. Warren is a woman, with all the enthusiasm a first female president would bring.

She's also fairly new. She brings none of the baggage Hillary had. Hillary didn't make it because voters were essentially over her. Warren is a fresh face.

You're a foreigner too, Rich. What do you think?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 20th, 2019 at 11:31am by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print