Jimmy Carter: Media tougher on Trump than any other president in memory

How did the media give Trump free advertising? They gave him no shot during the primaries Giving him no shot actually mattered with the electorate as far people wanting their to count and not be wasted on a hopeless candidate

 

How shocking that if you kill hundreds of thousands of people, destroy a country's institutions, execute the people who tried to defend citizens from an illegal war based on doctored evidence & forcefully install a new brutal dictator who hates sunnis even more than saddam hated shiites.... a civil war could ensue!! Those damn muslims and their sectarianism!! *fist in the air*

The civil war is a product of the war without question and the american invasion is at least partially responsible. As for your statement that the civil war has killed more iraqi civilians than american soldiers have killed, please present your evidence. I know it's hard, but try not to get your stats from the organization that doctored the evidence for the war in the first place.

 

United States and NATO troops did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

The vast majority of those hundreds of thousands we're self inflicted from a civil war over petty culture and religious dispuits.

Place some blame on them.

 

Over 100k is the number reported by the perpetrator of the crime, an entity known to routinely falsify such evidence to protect its image, the entity that doctored the evidence to start the war. Please present some stats. It is clearly in the hundreds of thousands to everyone other than the murdering army. IN ADDITION, if for example you blow up a hospital, then every person who dies of lack of medical care in that area going forward is a direct innocent casualty of the party that blew up a hospital. You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.

The notion that the civil war is a separate thing is laughable. There is no civil war and no isis without the war and the actions that the US unilaterally took in the immediate aftermath. If we installed Rush Limaugh by force after destroying american government institutions, annihilating essential public infrastructure and intentionally inflaming the US north/south divide (funding, informing and arming one side), there would be a bloody civil war. Whatever ideologies are present would dominate, Muslim or non-Muslim, plain and simple. The deaths from that civil war would be AT LEAST partially on the hands of the people who installed Rush Limbaugh. The civil war is very significantly on you, AND it does not compare in numbers to the casualties of the war.

Edit note: I choose Rush Limbaugh only to symbolize a dumb, popular, sectarian, violent, criminal figure who has no business being in charge of anything.

 

The civil war is not a separate thing and I never claimed it was.
I stated explicitly that the civil war began as a result of removing a authoritarian figure that suppressed the extremist elements.

So why do Sunnis and Shias need to fight each other to the bloody death in Iraq without an oppressive authoritarian figure to hold them in check?

The invasion being a disaster that should never have happened and the Sunni/Shia bloody divide being petty and absurd are not mutually exclusive.

Hence bigotry of low expectations.

 

See here's where your bias shines. There was an oppressive authoritarian figure in place even after Saddam. No difference. It was just a different one. Saddam's successor is as violent and authoritarian as Saddam & he was forced into the position by the US government.

Why did they fight a civil war? Are you serious? Go back and read my post. It was absolutely normal for people to react to the forceful installation of yet another sectarian dictator with outright refusal and ultimately violence. Shiites rallied around the shiite government because they had been mistrated so long of course. Personally, I am anti-violence. But you - a soldier - are a hypocrite if you're acting like you would not do that if it were your country. You believe in violence as a solution, and so do they. You just have better weapons and training, that's all.

You can try as hard as you want to make this about sunni/shiite, but it is not. Under those conditions, if the entire country was buddhist or atheist or whatever, they would break into a civil war some rallying around the new dictator and others rallying against.

 

Because they literally gave him free advertising. What they said about him is besides the point. Ask a social media manager, you will get it.

 

I'm making an assumption here.

The Shia regime that was put in place by the US was not as oppressive as the Saddam regime.

Sunnis being violent in retaliation is akin to US Christians realizing that they aren't being targeted but rather they lost the status quo of being the ones with power and thus act out irrationally and paint themselves as victims. This this is how the Sunnis of Iraq expressed their frustration of loosing their privilege.

I'm sure there were legitimate issues the Sunnis in Iraq had gripes over under a Shia government but I'm pretty confident that the Shias in Iraq were less oppressive. It's more of a certain sect lashing out irrationally from loosing their privilege.

 

Again your bias is shining. The installation of the dictator is the act of oppression, and you are responsible for the predictable consequences of that action. He was as oppressive as Saddam, except that Saddam had experienced institutions to aid his oppression. The US government installed its own agent. This is an act of war, a total assault on sovereignty. The dictator inflammed racial tensions, and he was a corrupt violent sectarian before he was ever installed, and every Iraqi knew that.

And even if Mother Theresa was installed, it would be logical that people who share your views about violence would engage in violence against that person. That the political narrative was molded around shiite/sunni is a hallmark of every such installation of a dictator that the US has engaged in. The 2-party narrative is the American trademark. Middle Easterners know it, Asians know it, South Americans know it, Eastern Europeans know it and Africans are about to find out.

Sunnis and shiites being violent is akin only to the exact same thing. That is, how would the US population react if a violent corrupt libertarian known for nothing other than sectarianism and shady dealings with the oppressor's intelligence agencies was installed as the dictator of the United States of America and he was going to create intelligence and military institutions that are purely faaaaaaaaaaaaaar right wing. Democrats and Republicans would become the sunnis and shiites of the civil war, tons of middle/left civilians would opt for unconventional warfare but those citizens who have been maligned for decades in the south would rally around the dictator. Because the dictator would make it seem like it's an exceptional state of martial law due to attacks on Americanism and generally he is pro democracy. He will make it seem like the confiscation of their arms is imminent, babies are being aborted for fun and he would highlight the crimes of the opposition. The people who oppose him would point to the presence of foreign bases and troops and the destruction of the country. Same ****, different labels.

Also, you act like shiites are NOT acting out, which is hilarious and also serves the purpose of defeating the narrative you're describing. Shiites and sunnis in iraq are killing each other. It's not sunnis acting against a stable entity.

Anyway, I've hijacked this thread enough. You never replied with the stats. Let me clear it up for you. The most exaggerated estimate of the civil war has it at 80-90k, with most of those being the side that opposed the US installed dictator. The most conservative estimate (by the perpetrator of said crimes) of the Iraq war is 120k, with most of those being the side that opposed the US invasion.

To try to tie it back to main topic, Trump has not sniffed that level of immorality or criminality yet. But give him time. As the deep state attacks him and pushes the sectarian politics, he will do more.

 

The media has been tough on Trump because Trump is a gigantic bumbling bucket of self-sabotaging suck.

Lucky for Trump, our media is abjectly terrible.

This is like saying "the refs are totally being too hard on me!" when you pick up the ball and run with it down court every. single. play.

 

Donald Trump's GOP is the antithesis of what a liberal Democrat wants.

No civil war.

Again, Iraqi Sunnis lashed out irrationally as a result of loosing privelage more so than being 'oppressed'.

The Sunnis oppressed Shias first with Saddam and then with ISIS.

You should stop defining me by my four years on the military. I'm a mechanical engineer now. Just because I served in the military doesn't mean I enjoy violence or think it should be a first solution.

The majority of civilian deaths are from the civil war, not US collateral damage.

 

By giving him press coverage more than just about any other candidate. If it wasn't for the media, the guy wouldn't be president right now.

 

People forget that the media's #1 bias, above all else, are ratings.

Trump brought ratings. The media's completely hostile relationship with him, with very few exceptions, was pure theater and beneficial to both parties.

 

Domestically, he's done more damage to our rights as citizens than Bush has minus the Patriot act by pardoning and endorsing Sherrif Joe who by the US court systems decree has stated that he violated fourth amendment rights of us citizens by targeting citizens just based on their skin color.

Not only did Trump pardon him, he didn't ask for an admission of guilt which implies to all of law enforcement across the country that this current time admin will turn a blind eye to law enforcement bypassing our rights.

Domestically, that seems immoral to me and and more immoral than anything Bush has done domestically. I think Bush probably hates people like Sherrif Joe.

No, Trump hasn't done anything catastrophic as invading a country without a justifiable premise yet. But he hasn't had a 9/11 type catastrophy to deal with yet.

 

How about Trump is tougher on Trump than anyone else? 99% of his problem are caused by himself.

 

Calm down. No reason to start name-calling. Say it to my face next time.

 

Omg this is ridiculous. He was a legitimate candidate hey had to talk about him

 

How did he get more press coverage.i really haven't heard this ridiculous claim


He was already more famous than all the other candidates

 

You seriously never saw/read anything about how Trump received so much press coverage?

Just do some googling. Here's an example:

"The Shorenstein Center report says that its analysis shows Donald Trump got the equivalent of about $55 million in free advertising space from the eight major media outlets it studied—and about $16 million worth of that came from the New York Times alone. That number “was more than [Trump] spent on actual ad buys in all media during all of 2015,” the study notes, and the candidate’s total advertising value was 1.5 times what Bush, Rubio and Cruz got."

 

Here's another:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-billion-in-free-advertising-2016-05-06