DailyPUMA apologizes for calling our present president a lying dickhead, however, Donald Trump continues to call Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary" and other contemptible names without a shred of evidence that has been adjudicated in a court of law. Therefore, the Lying Dickhead will exist as long as Trump continues to lie about other political candidates. (attention mainstream sheeple media, the above is a DISCLAIMER, something you don't have the backbone to apply to Trump's accusations that he presents as facts.)
After Hillary Clinton, the leading 2016 Female Presidential Candidate, released her Income Tax Returns both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump attacked her for making money by giving Wall Street Speeches and then not releasing the Wall Street transcripts.
After Hillary Clinton, the leading 2016 Female Presidential Candidate, released her Income Tax Returns both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump attacked her for making money by giving Wall Street Speeches and then not releasing the Wall Street transcripts.
Was it ethical for the media to give two Male Presidential Candidates who did not release their own Income Tax Returns (Sanders hid his wealth under his wife's name so even releasing his own Income Taxes would not have provided enough relevancy) media time to attack the leading Female Presidential Candidate's reputation based on Income Tax Return information that both Male Presidential Candidates refused to release to the the public?
Is it acceptable for the media to simply report on what the Presidential Candidates are publicly saying about each other when these same Candidates are not all releasing or allowing the same access to the same type of information? Whatever happened to the concept of a DISCLAIMER being placed every time a lying dickhead makes a deceitful, unproven charge?
When the press went hog wild over the Democrat National Committee email hack, was it actually ethical to do so when the Republican National Committee would not release their own emails? If yes, it was ethical, then explain why was it ethical to not remind the viewing audience via a disclaimer that the Republican National Committee is refusing to release their own emails. It's the mainstream media's failure to notify their audience of the "Gotcha's", the similar information that the accusers are not themselves releasing that continues to gall DailyPUMA.
When Donald Trump responded that he would release his own income tax returns when Hillary Clinton released her "30,000 emails", was Donald Trump also going to release all of his own emails? It sounds like Hillary Clinton was to surrender her Income Tax Returns and her "30,000 emails and in exchange Donald Trump would release his Income Tax Returns, but not his own personal emails.
Lets add up the list, Hillary Clinton was to release her own income tax returns, her "30,000 emails", the DNC emails, and the Republicans would only release Trump's Income Tax returns. This level of palpable absurdity was embraced by the MainStream Media who never once provided a disclaimer that what the lying, deceitful dickhead wanted was not actually an equitable exchange nor were his accusations ever proven in a court of law.
What is even crazier is everyone knows where Hillary Clinton flew during her entire time as Secretary State, but nobody knows where Donald Trump flew or who he cavorted with via his own private airplane during that same time span. We also don't know where the Donald Trump's kids traveled to on Trump's airplane prior to Trump becoming a Presidential Candidate.
Every time the Lying Dickhead accused Hillary Clinton of meetings that put Clinton ahead of the country, did the media then add a disclaimer that Trump has never revealed who he cavorted with during the same time period, or that Trump was expressing his opinion, an opinion that has never been proven in a court of law. Just because Trump was a private citizen during a certain time span then becomes irrelevant once Trump becomes a political candidate, yet somehow the mainstream media just did not get it. And the mainstream media still does not get it.
When Trump demands that Hillary Clinton be investigated, the media does not provide a disclaimer to its audience that Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United Stated to Instruct Justice upon the Justice Department and it is unknown if it is even legal to do so.
DailyPUMA believes the mainstream media has reached a crossroads in which they have to decide if it is ok to allow politicians access to their audience without then making a disclaimer if they are not being allowed equitable access to the accusers own business, personal and political histories.
The mainstream media seems to think it is ok to simply report on what a politician says, with no clarifications or disclaimers.
If Trump calls Hillary Clinton a "criminal", or "Crooked Hillary", should not the media also provide a disclaimer that Donald Trump's views have never been proven in a court of law and are simply his own unproven accusations.
Why did the media allow Trump to say whatever he wanted about another politician without any correction or disclaimer? If I were a billionaire, I would be suing the mainstream media so they never again allow a lying dickhead like Donald Trump to say whatever he wants about another person's reputation without inserting a disclaimer if the accusation has not been proven in court.
The Media enforced a double standard during the 2016 Presidential election, one in which those who did not abide by the rules could then publicly reprimand those who did. Sadder still, those who were allowed to ransack the media were male while the one who had to take the inequity and damage to their own reputation with unproven accusations was female.
You Republicans who are "outraged" that the "Me Too" movement has "demanded" you condemn some of the bad behavior of your Republican politicians who deserve it, it is because Trump was given such a long leash to lie and deceive people while no one from the media did the ethical thing and reminded their viewers with a disclaimer that the Lying dickhead was making claims that have not been proven in a court of law.
Did the Lying Dickhead ever prove the following message that he tweeted himself was true, or that it was his opinion?
Did the Lying Dickhead ever prove the following message that he tweeted himself was true, or that it was his opinion?
Lying Dickhead Trump never proved his Most Corrupt Candidate Ever allegation nor did he not say that it was his opinion. The Lying Dickhead stated his opinion as fact.
Why wasn't the Lying Dickhead's Twitter Privileges suspended? Could you or I do the same about another person as Trump did in regards to Hillary Clinton? Mainstream Media elected Donald Trump and won't admit it, all because they were too afraid to add disclaimers to the Dickhead in Chief's false, unproven missives. No wonder the Lying Dickhead mocks the Media, the Lying Dickhead KNOWS he should have been disclaimed every single time he lied, yet rarely if ever was a lie told by Trump, or an opinion presented as fact, disclaimed by the Mainstream media.
Why wasn't the Lying Dickhead's Twitter Privileges suspended? Could you or I do the same about another person as Trump did in regards to Hillary Clinton? Mainstream Media elected Donald Trump and won't admit it, all because they were too afraid to add disclaimers to the Dickhead in Chief's false, unproven missives. No wonder the Lying Dickhead mocks the Media, the Lying Dickhead KNOWS he should have been disclaimed every single time he lied, yet rarely if ever was a lie told by Trump, or an opinion presented as fact, disclaimed by the Mainstream media.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment