This is the official White House photographer.

File: 35749123232_bb440e6239_o.jpg (672KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1200x800px

Jesus.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:13 19:36:35
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3130556
a master of dutch angles!

>>3130559
Holy shit! I think /p/ has really made it big! I'd recognize this style anywhere. I think our intrepid little Tilted Bears photographer has finally made it big!

Is he permanently drunk?

>>3130568
Oh fuck, this is killing me
>American flag in the background, donuts in focus

>>3130552
>>3130568
>>3130554
Fokken hell this is killing me lmao

>>3130552
looks surreal

I'm new to photography, what is he doing wrong?

>>3130597
The first photo is complete shit-out-of-focus. He couldn't even get the framing right. Pence looks like he was shopped on top of the picture.

>>3130554
This looks like a tourist snap rather than a professional photographer.

>>3130556
What the fuck is going on here?

>>3130557
Everything is blown the fuck out. An amateur wouldn't even make this mistake.

>>3130566
Lens-flare'd to fuck. Indoors no less.

>>3130568
Muh closeup of objects. Cliched rubbish.


Look at some of Pete Souza's photos of Obama, they are very professional and he did his job perfectly.

>>3130568
This is the strongest shot of the lot. Which is a pictures of a bunch of donuts. Fucking hell.

>>3130554
This looks like a photo I would take then instantly regret.

I feel like this photographer is a literal beta sperg who's standing in the sidelines because he's too afraid to get in the way of the actual press in front of Pence.

Please tell me you cherry picked this stuff OP. I mean he must have some decent stuff mixed in with the bad. Wait wait wait, is this the same guy who took his Presidential portrait? Jesus Christ, I remember thinking how fucked up it looked but I just assumed the photographer was having a really bad day.

File: PE Color.jpg (3MB, 4032x5040px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x5040px

trump's staff just highers really shitty photographers

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	360 dpi
Vertical Resolution	360 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:11 19:16:47
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	145.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3130614
>highers

>>3130607
>Please tell me you cherry picked this stuff OP.
I found all of these in a set of about 200 pictures on the White House flickr account. Almost all the shots are extremely boring snapshits, these are the ones that stood out. Go have a look if you want, it's horrible.

>>3130597
t. white house photographer

>>3130614
>That cross-hatched hair-do

This man is the most beta of betafaggots.

>>3130619
>bigly

>>3130644
>fucktard

>>3130579
I would be if I had to be around these idiots all the time. More likely, he's just as unqualified as anyone else in this admin, but he's managed to avoid Trump's ire by making his hands look bigger with all these wide angles.

>>3130552
Is he..asian?

>>3130579
> Is he permanently drunk?
>>3130597
> I'm new to photography, what is he doing wrong?
>>3130600
>He couldn't even get the framing right
>>3130607
>he's too afraid to get in the way of the actual press
>>3130657
>he's just as unqualified as anyone else in this admin
>>3130664
>Is he..asian?

*She.

The current White House photographer is Shealah Craighead (who also worked on the Palin campaign).

In her defense, apparently Trump doesn't give her much in the way of access. But, you know, NOT in her defense, she's willingly worked for Sarah Fucking Palin and Donald Fucking Trump, so she's almost certainly a shit person in addition to being a shit photographer.

>>3130671
>if you work with specific politicians, you are a shit person
Oh look, another shit person trying to guilttrip and shame people into agreeing with their politics.
>>>/pol/

>>3130671
Glass ceiling: shattered

It warms my heart to know that women can now be mediocre photographers for despotic regimes. We've come so far as a society.

>tfw I still feel bad for assuming her gender.
I'll take my liberal guilt over conservative paranoia any day tho

>>3130672
I wasn't guilt-tripping or shaming. I was just bitching. If I were trying to guilt-trip or shame people, I would be mentioning specific policies advocated by those politicians and why you're a shitty person for agreeing with them.

>>3130698
>If I were trying to guilt-trip or shame people, I would be mentioning specific policies advocated by those politicians and why you're a shitty person for agreeing with them.
>she's willingly worked for Sarah Fucking Palin and Donald Fucking Trump, so she's almost certainly a shit person

It's called 'guilt by association' and you need to take it with you as you walk out the door, you bloody cunt

>>3130709
Fuck your feelings! MAGA

>>3130671
I'm so fucking sick of how people need to bring politics into every discussion. What people here are criticizing are not her political ideologies but rather her skills as a photographer while holding a high position in her field. I've had it with politics and people like you are cancerous for steering every discussion imaginable towards politics just so you can shove your ideology down my throat.

>>3130709
>It's called 'guilt by association'

It's really not. Guilt by association would be "The Nazi party endorsed Trump, therefore Trump is a Nazi". Or even "Nazis like eating well-done steak with ketchup. Trump eats well-done steak with ketchup. Therefore, Trump is a Nazi".

This is me saying that this woman makes a point of working with the worst of Republican politicians, which implies (although doesn't definitively mean) that she likely agrees with their policies.

It's also possible that she's willing to work with any politicians, and it's just that only the Republicans are the ones who can't tell a good photographer from a mediocre photographer. Her website does mention that she also worked with the Bidens, for instance, although every other politician listed there is a Republican.

(Fun Fact: It also mentions that she worked with "Florida Governor Rich [sic] Scott" and "Kay Bailey Hutchinson [sic]")

>>3130715
>I'm so fucking sick of how people need to bring politics into every discussion.

Literally talking about the White House photographer here.

>>3130718
Exactly. Not the President, not a member of Congress, not a politician. A photographer. If you don't want to talk about photography, >>>/pol/

>But-but i have 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE in creative fild

>>3130720
>Not the President, not a member of Congress, not a politician. A photographer

Well, first off, I threw down one little jab at the Republican party. You're the one who decided to make a whole big deal out of it and change the discussion.

Secondly: The office of Official White House Photographer is very much a political office. We live in a very visual culture, and the photographs of our leaders strongly affect how we feel about them. Imagine if the official photographer only put out photos where Trump's face was in shadow and he had an angry look on his face instead of the normal smiling pictures we get. Now, granted, that would lead to the photographer's tenure in the job not being very long, but that's *exactly the point*--when you're working as Official White House Photographer, you're basically acting as part of the propaganda machine for the administration, so it's an inherently political job.

And this actually goes for all news-type photography. There's editorial work that's inherent in any decision of how to portray a given public figure, what details to leave out or put into the photograph, etc. If you really think of photographers as just mechanical recorders of a scene with no political intentions, you might as well just have the Google Street View car show up at important events and go with its automatic selections.

>>3130739
Nobody gives a shit about your dumb justification. Keep your politics out.

lol I know this style. I did this when the company I worked at asked me to shoot a company meeting on some bullshit. It's called the "no one will see this anyway" style.

>>3130739
>she's almost certainly a shit person in addition to being a shit photographer.
>one little jab
Really activates my almonds

>>3130752

>Nobody gives a shit about your dumb justification. Keep your politics out.


lmao that guy just gave a bunch of valid reasons why she should have better photos and your just go

'huur duur leave nigger'

>>3130753
Good point, possibly the photographer has a litany of commissions in this style so that's her style, "no one gives a fuck" .

File: 1383459412733.png (162KB, 284x281px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 284x281px

>>3130713
>These republicans suck because they don't care to pay more for higher quality propaganda material. And you suck too because reasons
Liberals.

File: 1469832831596.webm (298KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 480x480px

>>3130717
>and it's just that only the Republicans are the ones who can't tell a good photographer from a mediocre photographer.
Here's another thought that probably never crossed your feeble mind:
Maybe it's just democrats who are more lose on the wallet when it comes to tax payer money. They have no morals and no problems squandering tax payers' money on expensive shit and expensive photographers.

>>3130739
>but that's *exactly the point*--when you're working as Official White House Photographer, you're basically acting as part of the propaganda machine for the administration, so it's an inherently political job.
So you are a retard who encourage people to deceive you well!
Or else you will be unhappy. Is that it?

So if Trump doesn't overspend a lot of tax money to have great propaganda to deceive you, you will get angry at him!

When you understand the points I'm raising, maybe you can better understand why republicans think you liberals have a brain disease.

/p/ - politics

>>3130775
>>3130776
>>3130780
I thought you didn't want to make this thread into a political discussion? I'm happy to respond to all of these points if you'd like, but I had decided to shrug and move on.

File: 1425066682320.webm (2MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x338px

>>3130785
>I'm happy to respond to all of these points if you'd like
I'm pretty sure you just got your ass wrecked, and will use any trick to weasel out of the argument.

>Democrats
They see photography and movies as a weaponry.
Something they won't shy away from spending millions of dollars on.
Because they love using this weapon against their population.

>Republicans
Small state, small tax. They believe the state should NOT spend millions on photos just to make themselves look better.

Anyone disagreeing?

>>3130552
Pence?

ITT: Republican hypocrisy

>>3130792
Don't attack your fellow Anons, attack their arguments.

>>3130789
I don't necessarily disagree, I don't necessarily agree, but why are you baiting for more political discussion?
Make a thread on /pol/ if that's what you want.

>>3130795
It's not exactly bait. Just a retaliation on a retarded Lefty who doesn't have his brain in working order.

Something has to be malfunctioning in your head to make you want the president to use your tax money on better deceiving you.

>>3130780
>So if Trump doesn't overspend a lot of tax money to have great propaganda to deceive you, you will get angry at him!

If he spent a tenth of the tax dollars on photography that have gone into his golfing trips and putting up his estranged wife in Trump tower, every photo would be shot on a Hasselblad.

Luckily he has Russian backed shills like yourself to do his propagandizing for free.

>>3130798
>If he spent more on photography, every photo would be shot on a Hasselblad.
But why?

He doesn't see photography and video as a weapon. He doesn't want to use this weapon on you.
Why are you so desperate to have him spent more money on this?
It's against your interest.

>>3130796
Premium quality bait.
>>>/pol/

>>3130796
You misunderstood the point I was making.

I'll explain more later tonight; right now I have actual photos to take.

>>3130808
I'm not misunderstanding anything. You made your point, but I cut down to the core of situation.

The bottom line is you have some sort of tumor in your brain, which makes you encourage your leaders to spend more money on propaganda against you.

It's a very strong symptom found in many commies and liberals.

>>3130800
I don't know whether or not this is directly in his interest, but a president's image isn't only seen by its citizen. It's also, and especially in the age of the internet, the image that a he projects internationally.

>>3130814
>It's also, and especially in the age of the internet, the image that a he projects internationally.
That's also very true.

And if you want to argue further into this direction, Even the act of not spending a lot on these photos is a signal of some sort. A signal which gathers a lot of approval from his electorate.
So keep that in mind as well.

Besides, this market is very competitive, the media companies already have all the images they need of him, whether they are good or bad.
Maybe it's simply a good idea to not spend so much.

File: ssbw-11.jpg (248KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1000x1250px

>>3130614
I'm still learning how to use Lightroom so my masks are pretty sloppy. Thoughts?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:10 09:56:47
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3130800
I think you misunderstand me. Perhaps it will make more sense to you in your native tongue:

Я гoвopю, чтo oн нaшeл гopaздo бoлee эффeктивныe cпocoбы выбpocить дeньги нaлoгoплaтeльщикoв, чeм ктo-либo cчитaл вoзмoжным. Toт фaкт, чтo oфициaльный фoтoгpaф WH - этo мycop, нe вaжeн.

I don't want the Trump admin to spend more on their propaganda efforts. I want Trump to stop wasting money on vacations and his own businesses and start improving infrastructure.

>>3130820
>I want Trump to stop wasting money on vacations and his own businesses and start improving infrastructure.
The wall is infrastructure. A very big one at that. It will also lower crime and improve national security.
The vacations are a different spending. They are necessary to fight off stress and whatnot.

>I don't want the Trump admin to spend more on their propaganda efforts.
Yes you did. You were bitching about the president not spending enough money on propaganda.

File: 1300044776986.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>3130820
MUH RUSSIA!!!!! LMAO!!!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

What are some of Obama's photographers like for comparison?

>>3130821
A border wall is the opposite of infrastructure, you twat. And if Trump is so stressed out after 6 months of not doing shit, he shouldn't be president.

Why are you so determined to defend the Trump regime? It's obvious from your grammar that you aren't even American.

File: cnn colombine (1).jpg (4MB, 2338x1700px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2338x1700px

>>3130827
I bet this goy thinks that mexicans are good for the economy, and lower crime rates too

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2338
Image Height	1700
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:09 08:59:13
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2338
Image Height	1700

>>3130832
>You were braindead enough to encouraging someone to spend your money on deceiving you
>He's also very acting with rallying.

lol It's a good thing Trump and his supporters are only semi-literate.

>>3130844
Spelling control messed up my word. That's all. Active ->acting

It's always a good indicator when you resort to spelling nazi, because all your other arguments got raped.

File: ZryJ2oZ.jpg (32KB, 735x541px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 735x541px

>>3130844

>>3130776

Pete Souza was also Reagan's photographer.

Really makes you think.

File: 1502179189585.png (302KB, 910x586px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 910x586px

>>3130852
Raegan was also a globalist cuck who had Kissinger in his administration.
And he gave amnesty to a ton of illegals, not so terribly different from Obama.

>>3130857

Everyone is a globalist cuck my man.

You also can't look to Cheeto Benito as a pinnacle of fiscal responsibility with the government's purse strings, not by a long shot.

File: 1423417772943.jpg (29KB, 500x257px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x257px

>>3130859
Raegan also funded the terrorists. That's globalist kikery on a completely different scale.

>Everyone is a globalist cuck my man.
Protectionism and nationalism is opposite to globalism.

>>3130861

>Protectionism and nationalism is opposite to globalism.

That's cute that you believe that it's so cut and dry.

>>3130872
It's just a matter of definition.

It's kind of retarded to say Globalism doesn't have a counterpart.

Can everyone just fuck off with the politics talk already?

Is there a character that could even possibly EVEN TOUCH Donald Trump? Let alone defeat him. And I’m not talking about Edo Tensei Donald Trump. I’m not talking about Gedou Rinne Tensei Donald Trump either. Hell, I’m not even talking about Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Donald Trump with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and Rinnegan doujutsus (with the rikodou abilities and being capable of both Amateratsu and Tsukuyomi genjutsu), equipped with his Gunbai, a perfect Susano’o, control of the juubi and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju’s DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu.

>>3130819
Keep learning

Boi that looks like shit

>>3130852

Really makes me think Souza cares more about photography than politics. Good on him.

>>3130671
>Sheila Crackhead
Kek. And her first name sounds Irish, so she's probably drunk as wel as high

>>3130959

You don't think there's no politics in photography, do you?

Okay, just got back from my photoshoots, so I'm responding to the points that were brought up as I said:

>>3130775
(This wasn't actually a response to one of my posts, and I don't entirely agree with the one it was responding to, so I'm gonna leave it alone)

>>3130776
>Maybe it's just democrats who are more lose on the wallet when it comes to tax payer money.

I wasn't able to find any evidence that Craighead is cheaper than Souza. Apparently the position of Chief White House Photographer isn't official enough to make the list of publicly disclosed white house employee salaries. As such, there's even a decent chance that they're being paid by the president himself or the DNC/RNC rather than by taxpayer dollars.

In any case, I don't see how you can look at the price tag for Donald Fucking Trump's frequent jaunts off to Mar A Lago (which are (a) expensive, (b) unnecessary, and (c) actually PAID TO FUCKING TRUMP HIMSELF since he owns the property) and say that Republicans are more better stewards for taxpayer money. Or look at the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars have cost us since Bush. Basically, the Republicans are just as happy to spend taxpayer dollars on shit, just that it has to be shit that benefits those Republicans themselves (e.g., pouring money on military contractors that often have links back to the politicians for previous Republican presidents, or basically just straight up embezzlement for the current one) rather than things that benefit all Americans (e.g., by providing cheaper healthcare, education, fixing infrastructure, etc).

>>3130780
>So you are a retard who encourage people to deceive you well!
My point with that comment was not that the white house photographer SHOULD produce propaganda, or that he or she SHOULD produce BETTER propaganda, simply that the office of Chief White House Photographer is inherently a political position, so you can't separate the political aspect of the job from the pure photographic.

>>3130789
>>Democrats
>They see photography and movies as a weaponry.
>>Republicans
>Small state, small tax. They believe the state should NOT spend millions on photos just to make themselves look better.
>
>Anyone disagreeing?

I'm disagreeing.

1. BOTH Republicans AND Democrats use media as propaganda (i.e., weapons). If you don't think that, you're a complete moron. The only difference is that most of the culture of the main sources of media (i.e., anything well-produced) is heavily liberal, so all of the *good* stuff is liberally biased. But look at Fox News, Brietbart, Sinclair Media, etc for the Republican propaganda equivalents.
2. Republicans do not actually believe in less government. They just tell you that because they think it will resonate with you because they've also been telling you that government is bad. Similarly, they do not believe in lower taxes, unless you're waaaaay in the upper income brackets. Under Republican plans, if you're in lower income brackets, you tend to end up paying more. Even if the math implies that you pay less directly in taxes, the reason you're paying less in taxes is because they're cutting government services that you then have to pay for out of pocket. "Hey! I'm only paying 14% in income tax instead of 15%! Thanks, Republicans! Except now I have to pay an extra 10% of my income in car repairs because the roads haven't been fixed and it fucked up my alignment, and in sending my kid to private school because the public schools lost funding and are shitty, and in hospital payments because I can't afford health insurance..." and so forth.

>>3130812
>I'm not misunderstanding anything. You made your point, but I cut down to the core of situation.

Nope; you entirely misunderstood my point. You cut it down to a strawman of the argument I was trying to make, then you attacked that and declared yourself the winner.

My point was not that propaganda is good, or that the White House should spend more or less on it (although someone else in this thread seems to be making that argument, so you might have been confused by that, but that's not the point that *I* was making because I had already left by that point to go do a photoshoot, because I'm the only person on this godforsaken message board who ever actually picks up a damn camera BUT I DIGRESS).

The point that I was making was simply that the office of Official White House Photographer is intrinsically a political position, so you can't separate the politics from the photography. It was in response to the guy complaining that I dared to express a political opinion in talking about a photographer whose credits are almost exclusively from working with Republican politicians. It was a meta-argument for "Does this argument have a place in this thread", not an actual argument for or against anything political. Since the thread has entirely devolved into a /pol/ mudslinging while I was away, apparently everyone else agrees that politics have a place in the discussion.

I did also say that I thought Republicans had bad taste in photographers if they keep hiring this woman, but that wasn't me saying that Republicans should spend more money on photographers, just that Republicans should, you know, develop good taste. I'm a little amazed that "maybe people should learn to appreciate artistic talent in the field of photography" is apparently a controversial opinion on this board but, well, it's not my first day here, so maybe the more amazing thing is that I didn't immediately recognize that it would be?

>>3131045
>Apparently the position of Chief White House Photographer isn't official enough to make the list of publicly disclosed white house employee salaries.
That doesn't really say much. The guy who moves the lawn around the white house isn't listed either, but he's probably on the payroll anyway.
That list mostly refers to various assistants.

>I don't see how you can look at the price tag for Donald Fucking Trump's frequent jaunts off to Mar A Lago
Isn't most of the cost usually related to secret service charging a premium for their bodyguarding every time he isn't in the white house?
Either way, vacation costs aren't all that bad when you take into account how much the guy is working.
Please take a look: https://pastebin.com/ynXV6CHT
It's pretty impressive.

>>3131045
>My point with that comment was not that she SHOULD produce BETTER propaganda
That doesn't matter. You DID criticize her for not doing the propaganda well enough. And you DID criticize Trump for not spending more money on a better propaganda machine.

Which is a rather braindead thing to wish for when you are in opposition.

>>3131060
>That doesn't really say much
My point was just that the speculation that the White House is "saving taxpayer dollars" with Craighead vs, say, Souza, is speculation at best. The salaries for the two are not public. For all we know, Craighead is being paid more than Souza was for shittier work.

>>3131064
>That doesn't matter. You DID criticize her for not doing the propaganda well enough. And you DID criticize Trump for not spending more money on a better propaganda machine.

That wasn't me. That was some other guy in this thread. I just said Craighead was a woman and opined that she was probably a shitty person because she mainly worked with Republicans.

>>3131056
>1. But look at Fox News, Brietbart, Sinclair Media, etc for the Republican propaganda equivalents.
The spending is nowhere near the same. To the liberals, it's a billion dollar industry to deceive their countrymen, both cable news and hollywood.

>2. Even if the math implies that you pay less directly in taxes, the reason you're paying less in taxes is because they're cutting government services that you then have to pay for out of pocket
Maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
Let's take healthcare as example. If I have to pay the bill myself, it's an encouragement for me to take better care of my body and eat healthier, so I don't end up needing treatment for some obesity related illness.

>>3131069

You must be either an eighteen year old Young Republican or a total retard.

No judgment though.

>>3131059
>>3131067
>I just said Craighead was a woman and opined that she was probably a shitty person
You forgot this part:
>in addition to being a shit photographer.
The two of you were saying the same thing. You're just trying to weasel out of the situation because you realised you were a fucking moron who didn't think things through.

>>3131066
>For all we know, Craighead is being paid more than Souza
Somehow I doubt this. Souza's CV is much more impressive.

>>3131070
>you are a retard
For believing in incentives and rewards?

Incentives and rewards for hard effort is what moves the world forward. Not communism.

>>3131060
>>Please take a look: https://pastebin.com/ynXV6CHT
>Mattis meets w/gooks
>Jared (((Kushner))) statement 7/24/17
>Pres Trump on hold with a potatonigger 6/27/17
>Pres Trump's shyster lawyer presser 6/8/17
>Kikenwald Get's Tentacled! (Tucker Carlson segment 6/8/17)
>Pres Trump departs is-ra-hell for Rome 5/23/17
>Pres Trump speaks @ Lolocaust Museum 4/25/17
>Pres Trump meets w/black cucks 3/22/17

Oof. Good luck if you want to make the "Trump supporters aren't all racist anti-semites" argument at any point during this thread.

Anyway, looking through all of those actual items, I challenge you to filter that list to remove all of the lines that are:
1. Not actually something Trump did (i.e., there's a shitload of links to things from Pence and Melania etc)
2. Just Trump trying to suck his own cock (i.e., interviews, fucking 2020 campaign rallies, etc)
3. Things every single president needs to do (shaking hands with foreign dignitaries, etc)

And just generally trim the list down to Shit That Trump Actually Accomplished. For bonus points, also filter out things that didn't really accomplish anything other than rolling shit back to the pre-Obama status quo, since he has a major hard-on for George W. Bush's America.

Spoiler: He has accomplished very little, and certainly not enough to justify spending as much time golfing as he does, and *especially* not when he was constantly saying on the campaign trail and on Twitter during Obama's presidency how he was going to spend all of his time working and wouldn't have any time whatsoever to spend on golf.

>>3131081
The guys in charge of that bin can be a bunch of meanies. But that's besides the point.

>fucking 2020 campaign rallies
I think they are midway election rallies. It's a pretty big challenge to clear out the corrupt congress, so he is starting early. And it's hard work.

It does look like he is doing everything he can, considering he has both the Democrats AND the globalist republicans against him in the congress.
You shouldn't ignore the things listed on that list, just because they are worded in a mean way.

I don't think Obama even worked as hard as this in his first ½ year.

>>3131069
>The spending is nowhere near the same. To the liberals, it's a billion dollar industry to deceive their countrymen, both cable news and hollywood.

Except that's bullshit, because it's not some massive liberal conspiracy. It's just that most people in hollywood are liberal, so they write liberal movies and liberal TV shows and the country as a whole lines up to pay money to watch them (or pay to advertise during them as the case may be). This is how capitalism works. If you want more conservative media, go become a conservative screenwriter. I'm sure you could get Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers or some other rich white guy yearning to fuck the ghost of Ayn Rand to bankroll it.

>Let's take healthcare as example. If I have to pay the bill myself, it's an encouragement for me to take better care of my body and eat healthier, so I don't end up needing treatment for some obesity related illness.

Okay, let's find a country where people do have to pay for their own healthcare and see if that theory backs up reality. How about... The United States of America, for instance, which has never had universal healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Body_Mass_Index_(BMI)

We're number 19 in the list. Interesting to note that only two of the countries higher in the list than us (Egypt and the Bahamas) have universal healthcare, and the Bahamas only adopted it last year.

So yeah, your theory doesn't check out in reality.

Also, your theory is dumb when we live in a world with accidents, cancer, viruses, genetic problems, and other various health problems that you can't avoid through changes in lifestyle (well, okay, "Live in a lead lined box and only eat nutrition slurry" would probably solve a lot of cancer potential and viruses, but it would lead to its own health issues).

>>3131072
>You're just trying to weasel out of the situation because you realised you were a fucking moron who didn't think things
Seriously, literally nowhere did I state or even imply that Craighead wasn't well paid or that they should have paid more for a different photographer. If you think I did, you're misreading my posts or attributing another poster's posts to me.

File: 1491321020023.jpg (105KB, 640x638px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x638px

>>3131085
>Except that's bullshit, because it's not some massive liberal conspiracy.
Then why has the liberal media been directed to say the same things and write the same things?

I do believe you are not aware of the extend these news networks are given orders from their masters.

>So yeah, your theory doesn't check out in reality.
Well, burgers are fat for other reasons too. Fast food culture and all that.
But that doesn't mean it can't get a lot worse if you take incentives away.

I do believe someone told me the hospitals are forced to treat you if you have very severe injuries, even if you can't pay them. Even before Obama.

>>3131089

So, wait, which are you? Young Republican or total retard?

>>3131087
>nowhere did I imply they should have paid more for a different photographer.
That's actually what you imply, when you call her a shit photographer>>3130671

File: 1491681461164.jpg (223KB, 907x909px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 907x909px

>>3131095
Says the guy who is too blind to see the media collusion.

>>3131089
>Then why has the liberal media been directed to say the same things and write the same things?

1. It was a dark fucking speech. What adjective should they have used? It's not a symptom of a vast liberal conspiracy when a majority of objective observers observe the same event and see it the same way.

2. NO U. Conservative media LITERALLY are directed to write and say LITERALLY the same things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

>But that doesn't mean it can't get a lot worse if you take incentives away.

It doesn't mean that, but it probably won't. People don't generally think "Hmm, I shouldn't have this burger because I pay for my own health care and this will contribute in a tiny way to potential health problems down the line." They might think "I shouldn't have this burger because it'll make me fat", but the financial aspect almost never comes up.

Additionally, you completely ignored my other point about all of the non-lifestyle-affected health issues that moving to universal healthcare would fix and no amount of monetary disincentives could possibly prevent. I guarantee you that no one has ever said "You know, I was thinking about getting pancreatic cancer today, but boy, with healthcare costs like they are? Maybe I'll hold off a bit until I build up my savings."

>hospitals are forced to treat you if you have very severe injuries

Jesus Christ.

Okay, yes, this is true. This is one of the main ways that Obamacare saves YOU yes YOU money. Goes like this:

Hospitals are forced by law to treat you and stabilize you no matter what if you come into the emergency room. Since out-of-pocket healthcare costs are so high (do you know what a deductible is, or are you too young to have ever had to encounter that concept?), a whooooole lot of Americans hold off on seeking medical help until it's at the point where they do, in fact, need to visit the emergency room. This is especially true for the millions of Americans without health insurance. (ctd)

>>3131102
(continuing)

So, Americans without health insurance and Americans with health insurance but who don't want to spend money if there's a chance that the problem will just go away on its own use the Emergency Room a lot.

For those with insurance: The hospital charges your insurance way more. The insurance company deals with this by increasing premiums for everyone.

For those without insurance: The hospital sends you a bill. If you can't pay the bill, the hospital eats the cost. When the hospital is forced to eat a lot of costs, they raise the rates they charge everyone else (i.e., insurance companies). When the rates at the hospitals go up, your insurance premiums go up.

And, of course, when hospital costs go up, more people hold off on going to the hospital. And when insurance costs go up, fewer people get insurance, which forces the insurance companies to raise rates even HIGHER to compensate.

It's a vicious cycle. Healthcare costs and premiums have been skyrocketing basically forever. Of course, over the last six or seven years, the rate at which premiums have been going up has lessened. CAN YOU GUESS WHY?

The costs would get even lower if people weren't so incentivised to play the "Is this a real problem that I should see a doctor about, or should I want until it's an emergency?" game. E.g., if there were just universal healthcare and people could just go to the fucking doctor when they get sick and when the problem is small and easy to fix. This is why in EVERY. SINGLE. COUNTRY with universal healthcare, citizens are healthier and end up paying VASTLY less--even when you take higher taxes into account--for healthcare.

>>3131100
>Newspapers that exist in the same world often report the same stories that are news in that world! This must be a liberal plot!

Only possible explanation.

Although... I seem to recall sometime around early November of last year, a lot of newspapers happened to be running a front page story about Donald Trump, so maybe the collusion is on the Conservative side?

>>3131100

Chek'd and kek'd. You know what the associated press is, right? You know what a wire service is, right? Do you know how newspapers work?

I'm not sure you do, being a baby lamb new unto the world, a spry 18 years' young.

>>3130888
>3dgy XDDDDDDD

>>3131102
>It was a dark fucking speech
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0
Can you point out the dark parts?

It needs to be some pretty damn DAAAAAARK examples, otherwise I will be more inclined to believe all of the liberal media have been directed by the same people.

>Conservative media LITERALLY are directed to write and say LITERALLY the same things
And you prove this by pointing out that 1 sinclair TV station did something with its affiliates?
That isn't even anywhere near as bad as the liberal media collusion.

File: 1491704794972.jpg (78KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 564x564px

>>3131106
It's pretty clear to me that they don't. For example, have you seen the chaos in Lybia in the front pages lately?

What about Sudan? Or Yemen? No?
It's very clear to me that irrelevant tragedies are ignored, while the same made up story is being pushed again and again by the corrupt liberal media.

>>3131109
>Can you point out the dark parts?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

Here's some dark parts:

>Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.
>Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims.
>Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.
>In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

Jesus, did you even watch this thing that you posted a link to? I actually never had, but I'm looking at it now, and seriously. What the fuck. Continuing:

>One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years-old, and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 Grade Point Average.
>One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.
>Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are in Third World condition, and forty-three million Americans are on food stamps.
>Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. >America was shocked to its core when our police officers in Dallas were brutally executed.

Seriously. It's like 2/3 darkness, 1/3 Trump jerking himself off.

>>3131102
>People don't generally think "Hmm, I shouldn't have this burger because I pay for my own health care and this will contribute in a tiny way to potential health problems down the line." They might think "I shouldn't have this burger because it'll make me fat", but the financial aspect almost never comes up.
I'm not so sure about this. To me, living a healthy life is a conscious decision, and financial aspects are most definitely tied into all of it.

>Additionally, you completely ignored my other point about all of the non-lifestyle-affected health issues that moving to universal healthcare would fix
In the conservative model, it's the civil society who can take over and help you there. Someone from your family will be able to pay, if not, someone from your local church community will be able to pay. They will have lesser tax burden and they are more generous with donations, especially when it's about helping people close to them.
So you're not without a safety net in this system.

>>3131112
Man, that image is pretty damning evidence. That's evidence that couldn't possibly be refuted with five seconds worth of google searching.

Oh wait.

http://www.snopes.com/cnn-same-refugee-girl/

>>3131117
>In the conservative model, it's the civil society who can take over and help you there

So hey, we've been living with "the conservative model" for the past 240+ years. It doesn't work. It just leads to people in general spending more money for worse health outcomes.

Like, there are literally examples of countries that have moved to universal healthcare. Lots of them. Pretty much the whole of the rest of the western world. It's worked out GREAT for them. People are healthier. People spend far less money to stay alive. This isn't some grand experiment, like "Let's just TRY free-market-only health care where everyone fends for themselves and see if it works?" because we done BEEN trying it and it DOESN'T WORK. And the alternative is out there, and it provably, objectively, works better. This is the stupidest fucking argument the Republicans have been pushing over the past however many decades. You're literally KILLING YOURSELF and PAYING MORE MONEY FOR THE PRIVILEGE just to maintain some hypothetical ideological purity of everyone taking care of just themselves which isn't even actually the case and not even actually what happens.

>>3131114
>Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.
What's so dark about saying this?

Can a man not be allowed to point out that certain cities are on fire, and how certain organizations are calling for dead cops without being the harbinger of darkness?

>>3131109
>And you prove this by pointing out that 1 sinclair TV station did something with its affiliates?

If you're saying "one sinclair TV station did something with its affiliates", I don't think you understand what you're talking about well enough to begin talking about it.

That's like saying "One McDonalds restaurant did something with its franchises".

>>3131118
That's a pretty good explanation. See I don't mind being proven wrong.

>>3131118
But it would be better if you would address the rest of the post.

>>3131130

That's assuming you deserve a seat at the big kids' table in the first place, which you clearly don't after posting obviously false shit.

File: PremiumsvsWages.png (38KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 960x720px

>>3131104
>It's a vicious cycle. Healthcare costs and premiums have been skyrocketing basically forever. Of course, over the last six or seven years, the rate at which premiums have been going up has lessened. CAN YOU GUESS WHY?
I'm not sure you have that part right. You healthcare system is a bit of a disaster as it is right now.

>>3131133
The image may have been a bad example, but the argument was solid.

The liberal media only report the exact same tragedies that are in the interest of their masters. They ignore those many other countries which are not part of the agenda.

>>3131128
>That's a pretty good explanation. See I don't mind being proven wrong.

Okay! So! That is a good first step!

Now, next step:
1. Consider the fact that that image isn't "a little misleading". That image is a deliberate lie. There is no way that anti-CNN meme could have been made without the originator looking right at the articles with those pictures, all of them pointing at the very same event, all of them clearly just pictures of the same little girl at the same event in the hands of multiple different people involved in the rescue effort, and then deciding to straight up lie and say that CNN said they were from different events.
2. Consider why someone would do this. This isn't a mistake. This isn't being slightly sloppy. This is deliberate deception. This is someone making the very deliberate and conscious decision to lie to you to make you mistrust CNN and, more broadly, any non-Conservative media.
3. This is probably not the only example that you've been exposed to. How many of those have you looked at critically? How many of those have you bothered to go out and fact check before spreading them around? How many other people have smugly shared them without fact checking them first?

You are being lied to. Deliberately and systematically. And one of the techniques they are using is to make you think that EVERYONE ELSE is deliberately and systematically lying to you so that they can lie to you with impunity and you will accept them as the only source of truth.

File: 35749123232_bb440e6239_o-01.jpg (209KB, 976x778px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 976x778px

>>3130556
>Not fixing your verticals

Bro...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:11 01:02:18
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	976
Image Height	778
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3131122
>Like, there are literally examples of countries that have moved to universal healthcare.
They have very long waiting queues. In some countries you have to wait months to get a certain treatment.

Some times Canadians cross the border to the States because they can't get treatment in time in Canada.

>>3131126
I never even heard about this TV station until you brought it up. So it's definitely hard to believe they are the greatest evil mastermind behind all collusion.

>>3131127
>what a dark and depressing place America is
When some of your cities are in state of emergency, it's generally more important to address those emergencies than to pretend it's happy and fluffy.

One can lead to results, and solving of the problem.
The other just pushes the problem further down the river, but hey, you'll do anything so long as the media don't call you dark and evil, right?

>>3131138
>That image is a deliberate lie.
Okay.

>Consider why someone would do this. This is someone making the very deliberate and conscious decision to lie to you to make you mistrust CNN
That's true, and I can tel you it's very effective. Especially when you combine such images with things like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI2AIu9oBJg

The question is, will you ever be as critical to CNN as you were against that photo?

>You are being lied to.
Have you seen that Daily show episode where Jon Stewart showed two CNN reporters in the same parking lot pretending they are long distance interviewing?
We are all being lied to at some point.

>>3131112
>Lybia; Sudan; Yemen and lack of reporting on them

Americans don't care about tragedies happening to brown people most of the time. This is an example of Americans in general being shitty, not an example of a vast liberal media conspiracy. This is especially true of ongoing crises for which the story is basically "Yep... conditions are still shitty here."

One could just as easily say that this is a Conservative media conspiracy, since the media is a lot more likely to report on a country's crisis if it's something that might lead to a profitable-to-conservative-military-contractors, helpful-to-Republican-politicans war.

>>3131143
>I never even heard about this TV station until you brought it up. So it's definitely hard to believe they are the greatest evil mastermind behind all collusion.

Again... You're completely misunderstanding the situation.

Sinclair Broadcast Group is not a TV station. They're a company that owns a shit-ton of local TV stations. And they're a very conservative-biased company. And they exert a lot of editorial control over their the stations they own. And the fact that you've never heard of them even though they own 173 stations across 80 television markets ("Market" in this case basically meaning "metropolitan area") and are on the verge of merging with Tribune Broadcasting (who you've also probably never heard of) so they can own another 43 is a very big part of the issue.

If you watch the Last Week Tonight segment I linked to, there's a bit where you literally hear one single sentence come out, word by word, from a whole series of different local news anchors. That's because that headline was given to all of the Sinclair stations' news shows to read. Given to them by the Sinclair Broadcast Group head office, which is decidedly conservative biased.

>>3131151
>Americans don't care about tragedies happening to brown people most of the time.
You say this, yet at the same time defend all those newpaper frontpages of the same story of the same image of the same child?

My point was, if the liberal media didn't collude, some of those front pages would have been different.
Some of them would have some story from another country that that exact same guy.

>>3131150
>The question is, will you ever be as critical to CNN as you were against that photo?

We're talking about the difference between a producer saying "Okay, everyone move together so you're all in frame" and someone saying "Well, this isn't true, but I'll pretend it's true to make CNN look bad".

It's like the difference between a girl putting on makeup and a guy doing a google search for "Hot Girl" so he can use that picture as his profile pic to hit on lesbians. I'm not going to be as critical to CNN as I was to that photo because it's not even close to being the same level of deception.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-rebuts-claim-they-set-up-a-pro-muslim-shot-during-london-aftermath/

File: 1.jpg (138KB, 893x493px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 893x493px

>>3131151
>One could just as easily say that this is a Conservative media conspiracy, since the media is a lot more likely to report on a country's crisis if it's something that might lead to a profitable-to-conservative-military-contractors, helpful-to-Republican-politicans war.
I'm not sure about this anymore.

Did you hear this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR6e9CUMbwU
?

That's sounds to me as if the American Military industrial complex has found liberals to be much more useful tools than conservatives.
It's the liberals who air poetry for wars and missiles these days.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
Camera Model	PlayStation(R)Vita
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:05 23:04:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	544

>>3131153
So on one hand, we have a bunch of small conservative TV stations who consolidate their resources into 1 company and share the same journalists/stories. Hence they say the same thing.

On the other hand, we have a lot of giant liberal news networks owned by separate owners, yet still be directed to say and write the same thing.

Which one is worse?

>>3131154
>My point was, if the liberal media didn't collude, some of those front pages would have been different.

I mean, in as much as most newspapers subscribe to the same wire services like AP and Reuters, I guess you can call it collusion. Another way to look at it is that print is dying and not every local newspaper can afford to have a live photographer and reporter in every country.

I should point out, however, that one of the newspapers in that image you posted is The Times, which is a UK newspaper owned by News Corp. I.e., that's conservative media owned by Rupert Murdoch. So if you're talking about Liberal Media Collusion with that picture, make sure you add in that bastion of liberal thought, Fox News.

ANYWAY. I think I'm gonna give up on you for the night. Maybe forever. I'm sick of telling Google what is and isn't a stop sign, vehicle, helicopter, parachute, storefront, or apartment building, and I've got photos to edit, and no one here is going to change anyone's mind. You had a brief glimmer when you realized that you'd posted that bullshit meme about CNN, but it faded

>>3131158
>We're talking about the difference between a producer saying "Okay, everyone move together so you're all in frame"
That's not what they did. they brought those protesters to that exact location, and directed them on what to do and how to act.

>>3131162
>conservative media owned by Rupert Murdoch
I don't think he's conservative. Certainly republican.

But there are a lot of republicans who sold themselves to the globalist policy. And he is certainly one of them.
He's in the same group as Raegan/Bush/Clinton/Obama.

>>3131134
>implying Obamacare is to blame
Funny how your graph shows premiums rising since 1999, well before Obamacare.

>>3131142
Yeah, because health care providers aren't adequately compensated by the government. That's not a problem with single-payer healthcare - it's that their governments are cheap fucks. Nobody said healthcare was cheap.

>>3131193
It was about to turn around, but then Obamacare made things worse.

>>3131100
>>3131106
>>3131107
>liberal media
The Times and the Financial Times are both owned by Rupert Murdoch.

>>3131194
>because health care providers aren't adequately compensated by the government
>it's that their governments are cheap fucks
So more and more taxes is the answer?
Or do you want your government to take on bigger and bigger loans to spend on things it can't afford, and become like Greece?

It sounds like you think there isn't high enough taxes in the socialist countries.

>>3131201
*Globalist media.

Globalist and Liberal are synonymous anyway.

>>3131201
I take that back Financial Times is NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch, got muddle with the Wall Street Journal

>>3131203
Rupert Murdoch is a raving Neocon fascist

File: 1487314347686.jpg (484KB, 1125x1636px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1125x1636px

>>3131204
>>3131206
It's a bit complicated. For example, I think Murdoch does own National Geographic now.

It's funny how they converted it to a political magazine, and actually support the crazies on the left.

>>3131208
Picture of a front cover doesn't prove anything.

1/pathetic - Must Try Harder

>>3131222
They put a Goldstein in charge as editor in chief. And the magazine is now more focused on identity politics.

File: HOUSING%20GRAPHIC%20for%20web.jpg (41KB, 640x464px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x464px

>>3131085
>It's just that most people in hollywood are liberal,
Usually in name only.
It's for appearances, and for easier virtue signalling.

When you really dig down and investigate:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/06/22/marin-county-assemblyman-works-to-avoid-affordable-housing-requirement/
It turns out the Hollywood liberals are racist elitists, who don't like to live near Mexican people. That's why they are working to circumvent laws to they can avoid cheap housing being build in their ultra rich countries.

When they are on the red carpet, they signal all the liberal virtues, because it's easy to sell.
It's easy to market yourself as generous and good. But the story takes a different turn very fast when they can no longer have their gated communities and being shielded from the immigrants they invite into the country.

>>3131223
You realise their 6.5 million (down from 12 million) circulation includes 40 different editions in various local languages and what you see in "Murica will be different from what people see in Britbong and Murdoch doesn't really care about any of them beyond the advertising revenue.

On the other hand his stable of newspapers and TV stations are totally focussed on pushing the neocon agenda and using Tronald Dump as a circus sideshow (the only thing he's good at) to distract attention from what is really going on

>>3131208
>support the crazies on the left
If you look hard at that cover I think you'll find it is actually taking the piss

File: Czz9RnJW8AAhqaI.jpg:large.jpg (308KB, 1408x2048px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1408x2048px

>>3131228
The neocon agenda actually very much just the liberal agenda.
To fund terrorists, to destabilise middle eastern countries.

Murdoch has a complex relationship with Trump. On one hand, he actually hates Trump, because murdoch is a globalist. He initially supported Yeb Bush over Trump.
On the other hand, he can't afford to lose the viewers who likes Trump. So he is forced to pander to them as well. It's a bit of a balancing act for him.

>>3131230
Nah, that's quite a bit added to the original, which was meant to promote people who amputate their penises, and other such people.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY /P/ WITH YOUR POLITICAL BULLSHIT

>>3131234
>The neocon agenda actually very much just the liberal agenda.
What a great democracy you live in. You have right wing, frothing at the mouth crazy bastard right wing and a clown

ITT: people misusing the word liberal

4chan business as usual I guess

File: s-l1600.jpg (125KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x1000px

>Is a moderate
>is fucking tired of right wing retards spewing molten autism and false conspiracy bullshit all over the internet for the past year
>go onto /p/ to see right leaning retards getting the shit kicked out of them by informative, well thought out non meme reponses

fuck /p/, I knew you were one of of the good ones. God bless.

>>3131234
>To fund terrorists, to destabilise middle eastern countries.

Both sides have been doing this for 100 years. Don't be such a tribalist sheep.

This never neededto be a political debate with hundreds of childish replies. Why /p/? Why cantwe just have a simple laugh at professional level snapshits?

>>3131277
>I kicked so much ass, I had to retreat when the arguments got too tough

>>3131278
>Both sides have been doing this for 100 years
Not 100years, just about since ww2.

But the liberals are leading the banner for funding global terrorists now that the right has been hijacked by Nationalists.

File: 1024x1024.jpg (173KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x683px

>>3131260
The San Francisco liberal elites>>3131227 may have the same foreign policy as the neocons, but they do have different immigration policies.
They welcome the Mexicans as slave labour working in the farmlands and cleaning the toilets. And at the same time virtue signal themselves as pro-immigration so it's a double win (so long as the mexicans don't migrate into their rich counties).

We also have the Bernie cucks, who vandalise their own cities and put their local communities on fire but they are mostly angry communists which nobody takes seriously.

I posted a thread to laugh at someone's pictures together. Look what you retards made of it.

>>3131346

Yeah let's get it back on track (if possible). Craighead was also the official photographer of Laura Bush, editor of Cheney's photo's and like mentioned before photographer during Palin's campaign.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/2/15140892/trump-white-house-photographer-shealah-craighead-vs-pete-souza-obama

If you compare Craigheads with Souzas pictures it really is night and day, Souza really took amazing pictures or he just is a more criticial photographer. Craigsheads pictures look more like snapshots.

>>3131347
Yeah, the article gets it right. Craighead's pictures are taken from too far away, the composition is mostly awful, and there's no theme to anything the White House is releasing.

I'm not good by any means, but I'm pretty sure I could take some better snaps than the ones posted to the WH flickr. At the very least, I'd post fewer bad ones.

>>3130664
why do you even say this ? pls tell me why, so i can improve myself as an asian

thread:
>Left wingers debate conservatives about small pointless subjects such as photographer salaries.
>Left wingers think winning a debate so small and pointless as such makes them superior in intellect and ideology
>don't realize they're still completely braindead for being leftist in the first place and that this doesn't compensate for their fallacious, hypocritical ideology
>literal epitomization of the phrase "won the battle, lost the war"

>>3131287
It would have been nice if it was just that, a thread where you laugh at some dumb snapshits.

But some people wanted to cross the line, get smug and call people shit/dumb/rotten just because they work for work for certain politicians.
That just calls for retaliation, and next thing you know, you end up with this.

File: shealahpiccrop.jpg (170KB, 904x474px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 904x474px

guys...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:08:03 16:40:25
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3131401
what is she even holding

File: GettyImages-632868142-857x1024.jpg (66KB, 857x1024px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 857x1024px

>>3131403

>>3131401
>Those fucking pink shoes ༼ つ ͠° ͟ ͟ʖ ͡° ༽つ

>>3131406
TWO grips? that bother me too.

>>3131406
Okay, so, all politics aside, and ignoring the quality of her photos, I would bang Shealah Craighead.

>>3131433
t. Donald

>>3131392
It's called taking the bait. This is coming from the OP who's only been saying people should shut up about the politics the whole time.

>>3131384
Everyone can feel your butt hurt

>>3130825
there was that cocksucker souza guy that even staged some shit with "the president" (kevin spacey). reddit liberal trash.

>stealing this thread the right way
>on /p/
>land of the degenerate mods

It's like you wanna get banned. Inb4 mods=gods

>>3131706
I don't know Anon. The right obviously have the upper hand, and they can more easily afford to be laid back, while it's the left who has a twist in the crotch.

>>3131277
Have you hit your head? How many genders am I holding up?

>>3130671
>a woman

Now it all makes sense

>>3130632
kek

>>3131406
>a photo taken of the official White House photographer looks better than the photos taken by the official White House photographer
Really makes you think.

>>3130614
focus is soft as dick. probably f1.4

File: 1502362465129s.jpg (394KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1600x1067px

>>3130552

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1067
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:12 17:29:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1067

File: 14670876264603.jpg (15KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x210px

>>3131806

File: 1466650237001.gif (2MB, 300x262px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x262px

>>3131806
top kek

>>3131745
That's because she's in focus, and not the fucking pillar.

>>3131384
Not directly at you, but I find american idea of their politic spectrum quite funny. What they think is left, the other world sees as fairly conservative right wing capitalism, and what they call right wing, the rest of the world sees as lunatic and retarded twisted version of fascist corporatism.

>>3131887
That's because you are fairly ignorant and clueless.

The candidate you find on the left can span anywhere from communists to moderates. And as you found out, the right can span in all sorts of directions too.

>the rest of the world sees as lunatic and retarded
Lots of people say the same thing about Sweden too, for example one of the local Swedish courts recently got converted to islamic Sharia court.
>https://www.svd.se/svenska-domstolar-domer-enligt-sharialag
From our perspective this makes you guys look like lunatics who don't respect the laws of your own country.

>>3131806
never change /p/

File: l333t.jpg (36KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 251x251px

>>3131806
took me a second

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:31 15:37:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	251
Image Height	251

>>3131227
this is less about race and more about class...

>>3130552
To be fair, they're not allowed to delete the photos they've taken

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzJiiJwgR0

Thank me later.

>>3130819
>>3132235

oh shit.

Anybody noticed this guy shot b&w for the first 100 days? Or was that a different photographer?