Media Photoshops Crowd Image For Crooked HiIlary's St. Petersburg, Florida Speech…

[Whatshername]

Media Photoshops Crowd Image For Hillarious Clinton St. Petersburg, Florida Speech…

 

Posted on August 8, 2016 by sundance

Remember the discussions of “optics” and trying to manufacture the perception of support for Hillarious Clinton?   It’s all a pretense; a fraud; a corporate media ruse.

Well, a great example comes today from “The Hill”, an on-line media outlet promoting the speech of candidate Clinton.  Notice anything, well, ‘odd’ about the picture:

It’s a 100% photoshopped image (link) assembling multiple rally crowd pictures to give the impression of Hillarious Clinton in St. Petersburg.

Hillarious is holding a rally at the St. Pete Colliseum in down town St. Petersburg. Located at 353 4th Ave North, the Coliseum venue holds approximately 4,000 people.  Hillarious Clinton didn’t come close to filling it:

 

 

 

 

 

A couple of hundred people showed up [door count puts the number at 171] within a St. Petersburg venue capable of holding in excess of 4,000 without seating (link).

But the media,… well, in the land of make believe, they just can’t help but manufacture the optics because the same media are selling an entirely different story with their polling:

At this point, the action of the media is beyond ridiculous.  Some in the media even note their own embarrassing behavior:

[…] Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.

Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.  (link)

As if on a very predictable cue, pollster Patrick Murray strolls in to deliver his narrative.

With ABC (Disney) dropping their media poll on Saturday night, and with Monmouth today having joined the collective, the circle of wagons has closed and our prior prediction stands affirmed.

Read last month’s prediction HERE

[Whatshername]

Here's someone I'll bet they wish they'd photoshopped OUT!

 

[divemaster5734]

11 hours ago, Whatshername said:

 

Posted on August 8, 2016 by sundance

Remember the discussions of “optics” and trying to manufacture the perception of support for Hillarious Clinton?   It’s all a pretense; a fraud; a corporate media ruse.

Well, a great example comes today from “The Hill”, an on-line media outlet promoting the speech of candidate Clinton.  Notice anything, well, ‘odd’ about the picture:

It’s a 100% photoshopped image (link) assembling multiple rally crowd pictures to give the impression of Hillarious Clinton in St. Petersburg.

 

[…] Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.

Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.  (link)

 

Looks like they are importing talent from North Korea.

Either that, or Oscumbag's BC guy is still trying to learn a new trade.

It is going to be awesome to watch Trump take the oath, but not just to shove crow down the media's throat.

We need to remember every single RINO that is working with the globalists to destroy Trump, so that none of them are ever elected again.

Looks like that socialist Paul Ryan will get another seat, but hopefully we can get enough real conservatives in there to deny him another Speaker round, and relegate all the traitorous RINO's to history's outhouse.

The gloves are off for the globalists, their centuries of planning, murdering, false flags, purchased politicians, data manipulation, and deadly virus planting is in jeopardy.

We The People know the Truth, and are ready to take back America.

[Whatshername]

Hillarious Can’t Fill High School Gym in Iowa – Trump Sells Out 12,000 Seat FL Arena

Jim Hoft Aug 10th, 2016 6:24 pm Leave a Comment

Hillarious Clinton held another tiny rally today at Lincoln High School in Des Moines, Iowa.
She couldn’t fill a high school gymnasium.

She couldn’t fill it up.
Look at the empty stands…

Hillarious Clinton in Iowa today… Can't even fill up a HIGH SCHOOL. The polls have to be wrong!! #AmericaFirstpic.twitter.com/HCvJxrZ5LF

— Political Review (@weh8hillary) August 10, 2016

 

Wee dancing to salsa while we wait for Hillarious. pic.twitter.com/hSjGQYQCew

— Lee in Iowa (@Lee_in_Iowa) August 10, 2016

 

.@gatewaypundit @realDonaldTrump#Hillarious barely fills the gym today at Lincoln High school in Iowa! Dont believe bogus polls MSM pushes!

— Jeanne (@jhodnot) August 10, 2016

 

Meanwhile, 12,000 supporters signed up to see Donald Trump at the BB&T arena in Sunrise, Florida tonight.
LOOK AT THE CROWD…….

Panorama: Massive Trump rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida pic.twitter.com/DxukNmvdtT

— Josh Lederman (@joshledermanAP) August 11, 2016

 

At a jam packed BB&T TRUMP RALLY. The Dems are lucky to have a few thousand. Just wait till November. pic.twitter.com/ZDNtUVwiAE

— Alexander (@alexmorat) August 10, 2016

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/Hillarious-cant-fill-high-school-gym-iowa-trump-fills-12000-fl-arena-overflow/

[yota691]

ab

PRNTLY EXCLUSIVE 

Hillarious’s Iowa gift shop speech gets nearly 20 attendees as Trump gets 13,000 in Connecticut

 August 14, 2016 Hillarious Clinton is trying to save her political career by campaigning in Iowa, where new polls show Trump with a lead. Meanwhile, Trump spoke in Fairfield Connecticut to a massive overflow audience of nearly 13,000.

[yota691]

 

[Whatshername]

TRUMP HAD MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY RALLIES THAN CLINTON SO FAR IN AUGUST

Donald Trump has proven that there are no off days for those running for President. As of August 14th, he has held 19 rallies — only taking two days off — whereas Hillarious Clinton has only held 8.

While Hillarious’s 8 events had an average of 1,531 at each, Donald Trump’s had 5 times as many. And roughly 10x more people in total are going to the Republican events versus the Democratic events.

Details Here

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Whatshername

[yota691]

Who are you Voting for?

• Donald Trump (71%, 115,445 Votes)
   
• Gary Johnson (11%, 17,487 Votes)
   
• Jill Stein (10%, 15,797 Votes)
   
• Hillarious Clinton (9%, 14,026 Votes)
   
• Darrell Castle (1%, 823 Votes)
   

Total Voters: 163,578

 

[Whatshername]

1 hour ago, yota691 said:

Who are you Voting for?

• Donald Trump (71%, 115,445 Votes)
   
• Gary Johnson (11%, 17,487 Votes)
   
• Jill Stein (10%, 15,797 Votes)
   
• Hillarious Clinton (9%, 14,026 Votes)
   
• Darrell Castle (1%, 823 Votes)
   

Total Voters: 163,578

 

WOW!  And that's an ABC poll.  Thanks Yota  

[MyLadiesDaddy]

• As If votes actually counted. 

[yota691]

 

[Indraman]

The social media polls and data analysis that I have seen does not give an indication of national polls, but i do believe it gives a strong indicator of Voter Intensity for the candidates. Voter Intensity indicators are also being displayed in the rallies as DT is filling ever place he goes to and in many instances is turning people away, while HRC is busing people in to her events and she still can't fill the venues.

One thing that I will note about the polls is that when they say the sampling is from "likely voters", the data will always be skewed towards HRC, and i could argue as much as 5~8 %. The reason for this data anomaly is because pollsters are going to have a very difficult time finding the DT "likely voters" because they do not fit the traditional citizen who voted year after year, election after election. DT is bringing voters to this election cycle, some of which haven't voted in an election in decades.

So when a pollster asks a DT supporter the last time they voted and they reply, 1984, they immediately get put in the "not likely voter" bucket. This is where the polling errors lie and will be seen night of the election. Mark my words, night before election all polls will show HRC with comfortable lead, but DT will walk away with victory, and final vote tallies will be a 5~8% swing.

Indy

Edited August 20, 2016 by Indraman

[yota691]

 

[SnowGlobe7]

Big One?

 

Big fat liars

[Whatshername]

 

[bigwave]

[Whatshername]

1 hour ago, bigwave said:

Matt Drudge has his own cartoonist?  That's cool!  

 

[Whatshername]

As If You Needed Another Reason to Question NBC Polls...

 

 

 

[yota691]

 

[yota691]

On 8/19/2016 at 9:34 AM, Whatshername said:

WOW!  And that's an ABC poll.  Thanks Yota  

They have taken it down....lol 

[SnowGlobe7]

BUSTED...lol

[Whatshername]

Media Manipulation of U.S. Politics Under Increased Scrutiny…

Posted on August 21, 2016 by sundance

Several recent articles are spotlighting a ridiculous transparency in the way the U.S. media is covering the 2016 Presidential Election.

The New York Post has one such outline titled “American Journalism Collapsing Before Our Eyes“:

[…]  The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.  

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

 

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.  (read more)

This article highlighting the ridiculous nature of the broadcast MSM falls on the heels of an LA Times Op-Ed last week which finished with the following quote that is particularly apropos:

[…] Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. 

Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration. (read more)

BIAS – How bad is it?

Well, when you have people willing to go back through months of New York Times articles to see if there really is something to this discussion, well, you can be guaranteed there’s more than a few alarm bells ringing.

[…]  I have read every article on every op-ed page since May 26. There were lots of articles before that—the Times writers and editors have been fairly obsessed with Trump for all of 2016—but I limited the study to the past 86 days. (link)

And their conclusion to reading 86 days worth of coverage from the New York Times:

• Anti-Trump: 70
• Pro-Trump: 0
• Wishy-washy: 4
• Anti-Hillarious: 3
• Pro-Hillarious: 23

Yep, the results confirm there is indeed validity to those people who point out this ridiculously over-the-top attack against candidate Donald Trump with the specific intention to advance candidate Hillarious Clinton.  As a reasonably minded person might say, at this point – it’s unequivocal.

However, beyond the bias there’s a bigger question – a question we have framed from the outset of the primary season:

With all of these media outlets having such a transparent bias, why would anyone believe polling from these same media outlets wouldn’t carry the same intention(s)?

That’s where you find the real meat and potatoes, so-to-speak.

How can anyone rely on data, knowing the data collectors hold such an inherent predisposition to frame a very specific narrative?   That’s our essence of our point whenwe direct attention to:

On June 15th aggregate media polling had Hillarious Clinton leading by 15 points.  On July 15th the same media polling had Trump +17.  On August 8th the pendulum swing was back to Hillarious +15,…. and now today the media signals of a tied race begin.

It’s all nonsense.  All of it.  Polls don’t swing back-and-forth 15, 20, 30 points +/- every few weeks.  Regardless of how much the media wants to sell this reality, it just doesn’t happen.

Like, ever.

Never.

Again, just to ensure we are not too controversial with this, we are not saying that “all polling” is statistically manipulated.  We ARE saying all MEDIA POLLING, by the same media outlets who are constructing the day-to-day stories, is manipulated.

Here’s one way to look for it.  When you see a media poll take note of who is the pollster, who is the public face of the poll.  Then take a few minutes, go to their various twitter feeds and look at the history of their conversations about politics.

The pollsters are so full-of-themselves they make no effort to self-censor their political opinions.  Mark Murray (NBC Polls), PPP Polls, and Patrick Murray (Monmouth Polls) are exceptionally good examples of pollsters willing to “out” themselves.

How does the bias data translate?  Consider Pennsylvania this week: A media poll from CBS finds Hillarious Clinton leading by 10 points.  A non-media poll from CEPEX finds Donald Trump leading by 5 points.  Both of these cannot be simultaneously correct.

The disconnect between the visible reality of enthusiasm, engagements, rally attendance, social media mentions, direct small dollar donations to the Trump candidacy, and monitored web traffic matrices – and the media narratives that are in direct opposition – has even captured the attention of Sharyl Attkisson who looked into some of the polling:

[…] Today, we look at a Washington Post/ABC News poll that also purports to show a widening Clinton lead over Trump – by 8 points: 50% to 42%. This may well be the case. However, looking at the poll sample numbers, there’s some relevant context not reported in news stories.  (read more)

The end result of Attkisson’s analysis identifies the same perspectives within the originating question.  The corporate media polling carries the same inherent bias as the corporate media journalism.

Here's another example...

 

With the election still a few months away the media can cling to the hope they will successfully be able to create a self-fulfilling-prophecy.

However, eventually as the days of October begin to slip away, the media is going to need to save face and reverse months of these presentations.

Because it’s not going to be close folks.  It won’t even be close:

( LINK )

Hillarious Clinton has a ceiling around 56 to 58 million votes, and that’s a generous presentation. (With considerable crossover President Obama captured 63 million in ’08).  The more likely scenario for Clinton is 53 to 56 million.

What is Hillarious Clinton doing to give her “supporters” a reason to vote for her?  The entirety of her campaign approach is currently centered around giving her supporters a reason not to vote for Donald Trump….

It won’t work.

 

 

 

[jg1]

On 8/10/2016 at 7:58 PM, Whatshername said:

Hillarious Can’t Fill High School Gym in Iowa – Trump Sells Out 12,000 Seat FL Arena

Jim Hoft Aug 10th, 2016 6:24 pm Leave a Comment

Hillarious Clinton held another tiny rally today at Lincoln High School in Des Moines, Iowa.
She couldn’t fill a high school gymnasium.

She couldn’t fill it up.
Look at the empty stands…

Hillarious Clinton in Iowa today… Can't even fill up a HIGH SCHOOL. The polls have to be wrong!! #AmericaFirstpic.twitter.com/HCvJxrZ5LF

— Political Review (@weh8hillary) August 10, 2016

 

Wee dancing to salsa while we wait for Hillarious. pic.twitter.com/hSjGQYQCew

— Lee in Iowa (@Lee_in_Iowa) August 10, 2016

 

.@gatewaypundit @realDonaldTrump#Hillarious barely fills the gym today at Lincoln High school in Iowa! Dont believe bogus polls MSM pushes!

— Jeanne (@jhodnot) August 10, 2016

 

Meanwhile, 12,000 supporters signed up to see Donald Trump at the BB&T arena in Sunrise, Florida tonight.
LOOK AT THE CROWD…….

Panorama: Massive Trump rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida pic.twitter.com/DxukNmvdtT

— Josh Lederman (@joshledermanAP) August 11, 2016

 

At a jam packed BB&T TRUMP RALLY. The Dems are lucky to have a few thousand. Just wait till November. pic.twitter.com/ZDNtUVwiAE

— Alexander (@alexmorat) August 10, 2016

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/Hillarious-cant-fill-high-school-gym-iowa-trump-fills-12000-fl-arena-overflow/

Good day today due To this, thanks.

[Whatshername]

Democrats For Trump

 

[Whatshername]

MIKE ROWE SAYS THE MEDIA WANTS TO CONTROL THE ELECTION BY CLAIMING DONALD TRUMP ONLY HAS UNEDUCATED SUPPORTERS

 

Mike Rowe

August 22 at 3:06pm · 

Pardon Me, But Your Slip Is Showing…

Albert Samos writes…The media has recently been stating that Donald Trump's key supporters didn’t graduate from college. They constantly refer to these people as "uneducated white men.” As an electrical contractor who happens to be a white guy with six employees but no college, I find this vaguely offensive and somewhat confusing. What do you think of the media characterizing people this way?

Hi Albert

If the media is referring to Trump supporters who happen to be male caucasians suffering from a lack of knowledge brought about by an absence of formal or practical instruction, than I guess “uneducated white men” is a fair description. However, if the Trump supporters in question are being dubbed “uneducated,” simply because they didn’t earn a four-year degree, I’d say the media’s slip is showing. 

Let’s assume that Donald Trump is indeed popular among white men who didn’t graduate from college. The first question is, so what? Is this information newsworthy? Obviously, thousands of journalists think it is. To your point, the words “uneducated white men” now appear in hundreds of articles about Trump. But if this is truly important information, where were these reporters four years ago? In the last election, an even greater majority of African-American males who voted for President Obama had no college on their resume. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any headlines or articles that delved into Obama’s popularity among “uneducated black men.” 

If the media didn’t care about the lack of college among black men supporting Obama, why do they care so much about the lack of college among white men supporting Trump? Moreover, when exactly did a lack of college become synonymous with a lack of education? 

There are many ways to become educated that don’t involve the purchase of a diploma. Why would the media ignore thousands of apprenticeship programs, on-the-job-training opportunities, and all the other alternative educational options that have led so many people into so many successful careers? The answer is obvious - many in the press are looking for ways to impact the election. If a biased reporter can get away with labeling Trump supporters who didn’t graduate from college as “uneducated,” he can simultaneously imply that any ballot cast for Trump is the hallmark of an “uneducated” voter.

If you’re only “vaguely offended” by this Albert, maybe it’s because you’ve seen it all before. Never mind the fact that you run a successful business. Never mind your years of training, your skill, your knowledge, your diligence, your commonsense, and every other quality that allowed you to succeed. In this political climate, none of that matters. These days, you’re just another white guy who never made it to college, voting for the “wrong candidate.”

It’s impossible for me to have this conversation and not think of my grandfather. Pop never made it to college. In fact, he never made it out of the 7th grade. But he never stopped learning or studying. He started as an electrician’s helper, became an apprentice, a journeyman, a master electrician, a contractor, and then a small business owner. Later, as an electrical inspector for the state, he was responsible for guaranteeing the safety of hundreds of buildings in Maryland, as well as all the rides on the carnival midway at the State Fair. He was a modest man of real intelligence, admired and respected by everyone who knew him. But today, he’d be right there with you, Albert - swelling out the ranks of “uneducated white men.”

Forget the election for a moment, and the medias role in it. The issue of what it means to be “educated” in 2016 has far greater implications. Right now, 5.8 million jobs currently exist that employers can’t seem to fill. Meanwhile, outstanding student loans will eclipse 1.3 trillion dollars this year, college tuition continues to rise, and once again, a new crop of deeply indebted college graduates will enter the workforce with none of the necessary skills to fill those open positions. 

Closing the skills gap and making college more affordable is beyond my pay grade, but it seems like we could start by reminding the media that a college degree is not the only path to success. It’s well and good to promote higher education, but it’s crazy to suggest the most expensive road to enlightenment is the best path for the most people. And it’s equally nuts to pressure our kids to keep borrowing vast sums of money to become “educated” in careers that no longer exist. 

On Dirty Jobs, I met hundreds of highly trained, highly intelligent, highly knowledgeable citizens who went on to prosper without the benefit of a university experience. These people should be congratulated, not used a pawns by reporters with a political agenda. I don’t care who you’re voting for - your college diploma - or your lack thereof - has nothing to do with the wisdom of your choice.

Anyway Albert, that’s a long way of saying you have every reason to be “vaguely offended and somewhat confused.” The media has minimized your work, insulted your intelligence, and ignored your contribution to civilized life. Try not to take it personally. Just keep doing what you do. Run your business. Vote your conscience. Keep the lights on for the rest of us. And the next time some hack writer impersonating a journalist attacks a candidate by calling their supporters “uneducated” - simply because their base of knowledge isn’t memorialized on a sheepskin - send them this picture and tell ‘em their slip is showing, and one lousy hatchet job deserves another...

Mike

PS. mikeroweWORKS has a new Freddy and The Biped Campaign Tee-Shirt with a non-partisan message guaranteed to help close the skills gap - “A Doghouse Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” Not only are they the epitome of fashion, a portion of the proceeds pay for training programs for jobs that don't require a four-year degree. represent.com/mikerowe.