Originally posted by sh76 Given that the tape has existed since 2005, somebody obviously sat on it until October. Whether it was WaPo or its source is speculation.
Hate to ruin a good conspiracy theory, but apparently the tape was sitting forgotten in storage in the Access Hollywood offices until someone remembered Trump had been on the show and decided to take a look at it. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/07/media/access-hollywood-donald-trump-tape/index.html
It's most likely the Post got it from a source at the show soon before it reported the story.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra "The press" wouldn't delay publication out of fear they might get leaked somewhere else.
Someone sympathetic to Clinton might delay leaking to the press.
According to the CNN story this is actually what happened: Access Hollywood was going to go public with the tape on Monday after the debate, but someone from AH apparently leaked it to the Washington Post.
Originally posted by mchill Someone from the GOP says the media is biased?? Gee, I've never heard a GOP lawmaker say anything like that. 😵
Actually, according to Wiki Leaks Hillary bet the farm that Trump would win the GOP nomination. If someone else had won, she would have been toast, but somehow she knew.
Originally posted by whodey Actually, according to Wiki Leaks Hillary bet the farm that Trump would win the GOP nomination. If someone else had won, she would have been toast, but somehow she knew.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's all rigged, whodey. Better go to that voting booth in your brown suit and intimidate voters like Trump suggested.
Originally posted by no1marauder A brown shirt would be more appropriate.
So I'm a Nazi, eh?
If Trump were a Nazi, he would win the election because power and winning elections is all that matters to a Nazi. They have no morality whatsoever, other than obtaining power. As of today, Trump is over 10 points behind Hillary, the election is over.
So lets say there is this nasty candidate that goes around lying all the time and giving away national secrets with impunity while her husband has a sordid history of abusing women. A Nazi would simply ignore it all and shift the blame to their political candidate of choice because they are a worthless shill of a human being.
So a Nazi would take evidence of someone who said that they like to sexually assault women and hold on to it in secret unless that person becomes a political rival. So they hold on to it for 10 years but then whip it out in fake outrage when that person needs to be destroyed. Of course, the women he may have abused in those 10 years must be sacrifice, all in the name of obtaining supreme power.
I heard a commentator say the Cruz and Rubio camps are the big losers, meaning if this 2005 tape had been aired during the primaries, one of them would be running for president and would probably be ahead of Hillary.
Originally posted by JS357 I heard a commentator say the Cruz and Rubio camps are the big losers, meaning if this 2005 tape had been aired during the primaries, one of them would be running for president and would probably be ahead of Hillary.
The Cruz and Rubio camps were not smart enough to trawl through old Trump footage. That isn't 'media bias' that's bad campaign management.
As for the media, of course its biased, but it isn't all biased in favour of Hillary. There is bias both ways. It wouldn't surprise me though if the bias overall is in favour of Hillary.
There is certainly very strong bias against third party candidates.
The biggest problem in the US is that media does play a very big role in elections and there are practically no measures to reduce bias.
So whodey, are you in favour of measures to ensure more equal time in media for all candidates?
Originally posted by twhitehead The Cruz and Rubio camps were not smart enough to trawl through old Trump footage. That isn't 'media bias' that's bad campaign management.
As for the media, of course its biased, but it isn't all biased in favour of Hillary. There is bias both ways. It wouldn't surprise me though if the bias overall is in favour of Hillary.
There is certainly very stron ...[text shortened]... So whodey, are you in favour of measures to ensure more equal time in media for all candidates?
More "equal" time to all candidates?
What does that mean? What is "equal" and who measures it out?
What I've noticed in these debates is, both candidates are suppose to have equal time, but usually the liberal gets the most time. Both candidates are suppose to be treated equally by the moderator, but the Republican candidate usually gets accused of making false claims as where the democrat candidate never does even though both make false claims, or the moderator asks the Republican candidate 8 different questions while they are trying to talk, but says nothing to the democrat candidate, etc.
There is no such thing as equality. Everything is skewed.
And then there are the other parties that never see the light of day at these debates. Sound fair to you?
10 Oct '16 13:01
Ted Cruz claims media is biased
Back to Top