Sign in to follow this  
Fakenews

Foxy news out as Dem debate hosts.

Recommended Posts

It’s only fair as they have chosen to become the mouthpiece of the tRump admin and a hater of all things Dem. (see New Yorker expose). I Feel sorry for the thre strat new people their Wallace, Shep, and Baier) but they chose their bed.  Fox issued a statement expressing their disappointment which was good for a chuckle.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/dems-kick-fox-news-out-debate-coverage

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-trump-stormy-daniels-803166/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No surprise that you're applauding this as a good thing... 

Read the New Yorker article carefully  and tell me why it isn’t. We don’t let the RT moderate debates either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Will do - gimme a few. 

Ok but seriously if you haven’t read the NEw Yorker article first. It’s a longish story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Republicans can have their debates between tRump and a floor mop (better hairdo) hosted by Fox, the Daily Caller and Alex Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

It’s only fair as they have chosen to become the mouthpiece of the tRump admin and a hater of all things Dem. (see New Yorker expose). I Feel sorry for the thre strat new people their Wallace, Shep, and Baier) but they chose their bed.  Fox issued a statement expressing their disappointment which was good for a chuckle.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/dems-kick-fox-news-out-debate-coverage

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-trump-stormy-daniels-803166/

Thoughts and Prayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Ok but seriously if you haven’t read the NEw Yorker article first. It’s a longish story.

Skimmed thru it quickly, and most of it reads as an anti-Murdoch, anti-Fox, anti-Trump screed.  The only thing I read that might be actionable is the question of the $$ paid to Shine while he's holding a position in the administration.  That Fox is aligned w/the right is well known, not debated, and as far as I know, hasn't been questioned.  There are plenty of outlets aligned w/the left as well.  So what?   

Help me understand how you think that acknowledgement of the outlet's leanings warrants excluding that outlet from covering a public proceeding?  I think it's important to have representation for opposite perspectives.   I disagree w/Trump's attempt to exclude CNN from briefings, too, and I seem to recall a steady stream of outrage from the collective left when he tried to do so, and even when he uninvited a specific reporter for being intentionally disruptive.   

How's this different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Skimmed thru it quickly, and most of it reads as an anti-Murdoch, anti-Fox, anti-Trump screed.  The only thing I read that might be actionable is the question of the $$ paid to Shine while he's holding a position in the administration.  That Fox is aligned w/the right is well known, not debated, and as far as I know, hasn't been questioned.  There are plenty of outlets aligned w/the left as well.  So what?   

Help me understand how you think that acknowledgement of the outlet's leanings warrants excluding that outlet from covering a public proceeding?  I think it's important to have representation for opposite perspectives.   I disagree w/Trump's attempt to exclude CNN from briefings, too, and I seem to recall a steady stream of outrage from the collective left when he tried to do so, and even when he uninvited a specific reporter for being intentionally disruptive.   

How's this different? 

An anti trump screed?  Well if that’s how you see it we can agree to disagree.  Did you read how Ailes fed trump Meaghan Kelly’s question before the first debate? Why would an inherently dishonest “news” outlet with a political agenda A la RT be allowed to moderate an opponent political process to help determine their nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

An anti trump screed?  Well if that’s how you see it we can agree to disagree.  Did you read how Ailes fed trump Meaghan Kelly’s question before the first debate?

You didn't take the entire article as a justification for their disapproval of Trump, Aisles, Murdoch and Fox in general?   

Did you read how Donna Braziles did the same thing?    My point is to ask whether not liking a media outlet's behavior warrants their exclusion?  There are a lot of things I can point to in many outlets in every alignment of the political spectrum that I disagree with.  Pointing out the behavior, and factoring that behavior into one's interpretation of that outlet's reporting is what thinking, responsible individuals should do.   If you hear something on Fox - do you immediately discount it in its entirety?  Or do you go looking around to see what other media perspectives are offered, and try to find the ground truth?   
 

I like NPR - they try hard to present multiple perspectives in their reporting of a topic, and ask probing questions of each perspective that dig in to the defense or explanation of the perspective.   Isn't that what we oughta do w/r/t our interpretation of biased opinion?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a legitimate news outfit, it is a bastion of conspiracy theory pimping (Seth Rich) and propaganda.  We need to know news not bullshit.  We can get bullshit delivered by any number of sources who deliver the Foxy to us daily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probabaly wouldn't give their anointed one the questions in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It is not a legitimate news outfit, it is a bastion of conspiracy theory pimping (Seth Rich) and propaganda.  We need to know news not bullshit.  We can get bullshit delivered by any number of sources who deliver the Foxy to us daily. 

So - your disagreement is justification for their exclusion from public events?   Duly noted - and I'll bring that up regularly in 2020.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - your disagreement is justification for their exclusion from public events?   Duly noted - and I'll bring that up regularly in 2020.  

Not disagreement.  The Seth Rich conspiracy story was bullshit.  Bullshit is not another side of the story, which is why the people getting sued over it are issuing retractions.  There is no merit in bullshit. I have no tolerance for bullshit pimped as fact.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It is not a legitimate news outfit, it is a bastion of conspiracy theory pimping (Seth Rich) and propaganda.  We need to know news not bullshit.  We can get bullshit delivered by any number of sources who deliver the Foxy to us daily. 

Bret Baier is one of the best political interviewers on television today.  That you can’t or won’t acknowledge that is just another example of your rampant partisanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell would the Dems have anything to do with Hannity TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Why the hell would the Dems have anything to do with Hannity TV?

For the same reason y'all expect the WH to keep allowing MSNBC, CNN and other outlets critical of the right to be present in public events.   You don't have to agree with, like, or appreciate what they do to respect the right of access, and that's my only point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

For the same reason y'all expect the WH to keep allowing MSNBC, CNN and other outlets critical of the right to be present in public events.   You don't have to agree with, like, or appreciate what they do to respect the right of access, and that's my only point.   

I expect the White House to allow the press because it represents all of us.

Fox has chosen to become propaganda, not news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I expect the White House to allow the press because it represents all of us.

I could read that a couple different ways.  Mind helping me understand what point you're making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No surprise that you're applauding this as a good thing... 

It IS a good thing - just as it would be if they banned the National Enquirer, Breitbart and any of the other trash and/or propaganda sources.

Fox is not a legitimate news source so why should it be treated like one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

For the same reason y'all expect the WH to keep allowing MSNBC, CNN and other outlets critical of the right to be present in public events.   You don't have to agree with, like, or appreciate what they do to respect the right of access, and that's my only point.   

I haven't seen anybody from any other networks up on stage with candidates at rallies, I haven't ever before seen the government's agenda set by morning talk shows. Fox is, like Jon said, propaganda these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

For the same reason y'all expect the WH to keep allowing MSNBC, CNN and other outlets critical of the right to be present in public events.

I think the WH should totally kick them out and I don't understand why they are such pussies about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I haven't seen anybody from any other networks up on stage with candidates at rallies, I haven't ever before seen the government's agenda set by morning talk shows. Fox is, like Jon said, propaganda these days

Ok - let's pick at that for a second if ya don't mind.  I agree that much of what Fox reports can be construed as propaganda, but, they also reflect the ideas and priorities of a large number of people in the country.  Do you suggest that those with differing opinions should be disenfranchised?  Isolated from participation?   

What is the standard that determines who should have access and who shouldn't?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ok - let's pick at that for a second if ya don't mind.  I agree that much of what Fox reports can be construed as propaganda, but, they also reflect the ideas and priorities of a large number of people in the country.  Do you suggest that those with differing opinions should be disenfranchised?  Isolated from participation?   

What is the standard that determines who should have access and who shouldn't?

 

Isolated? Why, because they can't get off their fat asses, pick up the remote and change the channel?
 

Before you get all Kumbayah on me, my preference would be hosted by 3rd party orgs like League of Women Voters and covered, or not, by news agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faux is different, and illegitimate, because they have zero respect for the truth - which makes what they do something other than journalism. 

there is no parallel on the other networks to the Seth Rich avalanche of made up BS on FOX. 

Really, it's not close . .  here is a catch from just a few days ago . .  

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Isolated? Why, because they can't get off their fat asses, pick up the remote and change the channel?
  

Before you get all Kumbayah on me, my preference would be hosted by 3rd party orgs like League of Women Voters and covered, or not, by news agencies.

Change the channel to what?  An outlet that constantly attacks and belittles their position?  Like you'd go watch a Fox segment?   I'm not preaching kumbaya at all, just asking questions. 

Why not address the main question:  If it's OK to exclude, what's the standard?

Not sure I understand your comment w/r/t preference - are you saying that you'd rather see party debates hosted by a non-government entity?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ok - let's pick at that for a second if ya don't mind.  I agree that much of what Fox reports can be construed as propaganda, but, they also reflect the ideas and priorities of a large number of people in the country.  Do you suggest that those with differing opinions should be disenfranchised?  Isolated from participation?   

What is the standard that determines who should have access and who shouldn't?

 

As Raz'r said, why would they have to view it on Fox? It would do them good to see what other networks and sources are saying. Are they such snowflakes they can't break away from their daily outrage?

Absolutely the debates should be moderated by non-partisans and produced as a pool feed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

As Raz'r said, why would they have to view it on Fox? It would do them good to see what other networks and sources are saying. Are they such snowflakes they can't break away from their daily outrage?

Absolutely the debates should be moderated by non-partisans and produced as a pool feed. 

So - it's OK to exclude an outlet because you don't like 'em, and the people that do can suck it up and go watch someone they don't like to hear what's happening?  Gotcha.  
If your explanation is what Flash meant - I agree, that'd be the fairest and most open.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Change the channel to what?  An outlet that constantly attacks and belittles their position?  Like you'd go watch a Fox segment?   I'm not preaching kumbaya at all, just asking questions. 

Why not address the main question:  If it's OK to exclude, what's the standard?

Not sure I understand your comment w/r/t preference - are you saying that you'd rather see party debates hosted by a non-government entity?  

A non-"entertainment" entity. League of women voters, some weird debate professor, etc.

Unfortunately, they are just another ratings grab (meaning sponsor money grab) so you get pretty newscasters asking gotcha questions. Really a waste of time.

And if some Faux fan can't change the channel to CBS - that's his problem, not mine.  I can't believe you think that person would be disenfranchised if they were forced to watch a debate on a non-Fox channel. Hell, they wouldn't watch a Dem debate anyway. They're too boring. Policy and shit like that. Where's the blood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

 

Absolutely the debates should be moderated by non-partisans and produced as a pool feed. 

 

much better said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Faux is different, and illegitimate, because they have zero respect for the truth - which makes what they do something other than journalism.

"Conditions are bad, but there is no famine,"  - a Pulitzer prize winning NYT "journalist" in March 1933

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Change the channel to what?  An outlet that constantly attacks and belittles their position?  Like you'd go watch a Fox segment?   I'm not preaching kumbaya at all, just asking questions. 

Why not address the main question:  If it's OK to exclude, what's the standard?

Not sure I understand your comment w/r/t preference - are you saying that you'd rather see party debates hosted by a non-government entity?  

If a “news” outfit is a faint of progoganda and complete and utter outlandish BS (Seth Rich) they should be excluded.

Thats my reasonable standard.  Many others have said the same.  Why do you struggle with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

If a “news” outfit is a faint of progoganda and complete and utter outlandish BS (Seth Rich) they should be excluded.

Thats my reasonable standard.  Many others have said the same.  Why do you struggle with that?

Because your assessment of propaganda and outlandish bullshit is likely much different than mine, and I don't think I want you, or someone with your perspective being the arbiter of who should and shouldn't be allowed access to cover an event.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people continue to support the view that an alternative position should be encouraged, especially an alternative position devoid of facts? Some people have to learn to be humble, that its ok to be wrong.

Why are people proud being deplorable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Why do people continue to support the view that an alternative position should be encouraged, especially an alternative position devoid of facts? Some people have to learn to be humble, that its ok to be wrong.

Why are people proud being deplorable?

 

So - which "position" should be adopted as the standard?    Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because your assessment of propaganda and outlandish bullshit is likely much different than mine, and I don't think I want you, or someone with your perspective being the arbiter of who should and shouldn't be allowed access to cover an event.  

They can clearly cover it. They just can’t moderate it. Sad that you can’t even to begin to admit propagandist at Faux news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

They can clearly cover it. They just can’t moderate it. Sad that you can’t even to begin to admit propagandist at Faux news.

I can't admit what?   RIF - but, OK. 

What's sad is the amount of effort you lovely leties expend trying to diminish and demean.  But, hey, if that's what it takes to make ya feel good about yourself, who am I to question that?   

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - which "position" should be adopted as the standard?    Why? 

the factual one?

I'm really having trouble with what exactly you righties want these days other than your side to "win".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

the factual one?

I'm really having trouble with what exactly you righties want these days other than your side to "win".

What I want is for stupid fuggers to quit thinking that their opinion of a perspective should matter at all as to whether or not that perspective deserves to exist.  Period, end.   I have to hear a lot of things that I think are stupid, outlandish, harmful bullshit, but, I don't in any instance think that my opinion of those perspectives warrants trying to silence them.  Refute 'em?  Damn straight.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What I want is for stupid fuggers to quit thinking that their opinion of a perspective should matter at all as to whether or not that perspective deserves to exist.  Period, end.   I have to hear a lot of things that I think are stupid, outlandish, harmful bullshit, but, I don't in any instance think that my opinion of those perspectives warrants trying to silence them.  Refute 'em?  Damn straight.  

I'm having trouble squaring this with your support of the Sandeman/WaPo lawsuit, and ergo his lawyers use of threats to get people to apologize and perhaps settle for cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Why the hell would the Dems have anything to do with Hannity TV?

Well, they could call the Fox debate host fake, a liar, and an enemy of the people.  Repeatedly!  

Refuse to answer the host, and insist on a different host during the debate.

They could start a chant of ‘lock him up’ about a cast of Republican characters.

They could start terrible rumors about Fox and Trump based on total fabrications from left wing media.

The Women candidates could wear miniskirts, and too much makeup, thus guaranteeing the Fox watching old white male vote.

They could seed the audience with women who have been sexually abused by Fox employees, and introduce them to the American tv watching public.  Individually.

Talk directly to Trump through the television.

And they could ask Hannity, if he were hosting, questions of an intimate and personal nature. ;) (nightly:) calls?)

That there would be some serious entertainment!  Wickedly effective!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

way to be current :rolleyes:

Must be a day that ends in Y, since r'iblet missed the point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What I want is for stupid fuggers to quit thinking that their opinion of a perspective should matter at all as to whether or not that perspective deserves to exist.  Period, end.   I have to hear a lot of things that I think are stupid, outlandish, harmful bullshit, but, I don't in any instance think that my opinion of those perspectives warrants trying to silence them.  Refute 'em?  Damn straight.  

 

Fox News has the right to thier perspective and it exists even if it shouldn’t.  They don’t have the right to moderate the political selection process of what is essentially the opposition party.

How do you not get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

Must be a day that ends in Y, since r'iblet missed the point

i took the point as a rightwinger drawing an ignorant comparison to the past as some statement on the present. was there some other point in bringing up Walter Duranty? Do you think the NYT of the 1930s or the reporting world of the 1930s are similar too or even relevant today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fakenews said:

It’s only fair as they have chosen to become the mouthpiece of the tRump admin and a hater of all things Dem. (see New Yorker expose). I Feel sorry for the thre strat new people their Wallace, Shep, and Baier) but they chose their bed.  Fox issued a statement expressing their disappointment which was good for a chuckle.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/dems-kick-fox-news-out-debate-coverage

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-trump-stormy-daniels-803166/

So now you support media suppression, OK no worries. Just keep that in mind the next time you freak out when Trump dis invites MSNBC to some coverage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

The arrogance of the left proudly on display right here folks.

Thanks for proving my point. Did I mention a left or a right?

 

Your partisan hubris is duly noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

So now you support media suppression, OK no worries. Just keep that in mind the next time you freak out when Trump dis invites MSNBC to some coverage.  

What are you going on about snowflake?

So a private group (democrats) decided that they didn't want one for-profit business (Faux) host one of that private groups big shows.

Who gives a shit?  I really don't give a shit if a group of consumers can't even change the fucking TV Channel if they are interested in said TV Show.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - which "position" should be adopted as the standard?    Why? 

If its a position,  then you missed the point. Facts don't have a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

What are you going on about snowflake?

So a private group (democrats) decided that they didn't want one for-profit business (Faux) host one of that private groups big shows.

Who gives a shit?  I really don't give a shit if a group of consumers can't even change the fucking TV Channel if they are interested in said TV Show.

 

 

Snowflake? I didn't complain about a thing... But believe as you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It is not a legitimate news outfit, it is a bastion of conspiracy theory pimping (Seth Rich) and propaganda.  We need to know news not bullshit.  We can get bullshit delivered by any number of sources who deliver the Foxy to us daily. 

and MSNBC is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s pretty simple  The DNC is afraid of questions FOX might ask.  

The other networks will never do anything or ask anything that might make a Democratic candidate look bad

Fox asked tough questions to all the candidates look all mad Trump got at some of his questions from Meghan Kelly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It’s pretty simple  The DNC is afraid of questions FOX might ask.  

The other networks will never do anything or ask anything that might make a Democratic candidate look bad

Fox asked tough questions to all the candidates look all mad Trump got at some of his questions from Meghan Kelly. 

 

I don’t understand why, Fox gave him her opening question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fakenews said:

It’s only fair as they have chosen to become the mouthpiece of the tRump admin and a hater of all things Dem. (see New Yorker expose). I Feel sorry for the thre strat new people their Wallace, Shep, and Baier) but they chose their bed.  Fox issued a statement expressing their disappointment which was good for a chuckle.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/dems-kick-fox-news-out-debate-coverage

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-trump-stormy-daniels-803166/

did SA get a talk to post feature or are you hitting the sauce early today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Fox asked tough questions to all the candidates look all mad Trump got at some of his questions from Meghan Kelly. 

bots malfunctioning today, eh boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if you guys are being honest with yourselves, you already understand the whole "CNN kicked out of the White House" analogy is bullshit. The White House press releases & interviews represent the elected executive government. Regardless of the party a president might belong to, once they are the democratically elected leader of the country - that comes with a few more responsibilities & moral considerations over and above just running for office. 

The Democratic Party is not the government. They aren't required, or morally obliged, to let everyone who wants the chance to host or televise their non-government event. I don't see anything non-democratic about that - no-one is being prevented from seeing the debates or forming an opinion on the nominees. Nor is FOX prevented from commenting on the debate or the nominees. The Democratic Party is merely limiting a corporation's ability to profit from their event and limiting a well-funded organisation with stated opposition to their party's presidential chances from being allowed to upset said event.

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with the Republican Party doing the same. Privately controlled functions of a political party are not the same as being the executive government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No surprise that you're applauding this as a good thing... 

Bad ideas don't like to be challenged. 

A sure sign of insecurity. Will probably ask CNN for the questions ahead of time or maybe they will give the questions to CNN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why not address the main question:  If it's OK to exclude, what's the standard?

Truth, facts - those kinda things.

Just because a bunch of mouth breathers want to see propaganda on Fox or the Enquirer or Breitbart as their "news" source doesn't mean that people with actual functioning brains have to cater to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the majority of this thread is about chessie refusing to understand how a network of lies and propaganda differs from one that has political leanings but still tells the truth.  He says he gets it but then jumps right back in to comparing news outlets like CBS to Fox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOX is allowed to participate. They just haven't been chosen to moderate.

 I'm sure that if there are Republican debates, FOX will be invited to moderate.

 See, the thing is, if you go and shit on people, you really can't expect them to welcome you in to their picnic.... It's just common sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Dems and progressives should be treating the FAUX Reich with the contempt it deserves. 

Jeez, the bothsidesism drives me nuts . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

All the Dems and progressives should be treating the FAUX Reich with the contempt it deserves. 

Jeez, the bothsidesism drives me nuts . .

I hate to break it to you,  but most of us think you are already nuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

OK, if you guys are being honest with yourselves, you already understand the whole "CNN kicked out of the White House" analogy is bullshit. The White House press releases & interviews represent the elected executive government. Regardless of the party a president might belong to, once they are the democratically elected leader of the country - that comes with a few more responsibilities & moral considerations over and above just running for office. 

The Democratic Party is not the government. They aren't required, or morally obliged, to let everyone who wants the chance to host or televise their non-government event. I don't see anything non-democratic about that - no-one is being prevented from seeing the debates or forming an opinion on the nominees. Nor is FOX prevented from commenting on the debate or the nominees. The Democratic Party is merely limiting a corporation's ability to profit from their event and limiting a well-funded organisation with stated opposition to their party's presidential chances from being allowed to upset said event.

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with the Republican Party doing the same. Privately controlled functions of a political party are not the same as being the executive government. 

I agree with most of that. 

The  only quibble is that most, if not all of those candidates will be getting funding from the government.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mature, well-reasoned response from the duly elected leader of the free world. Ever the uniter...

170415294_ScreenShot2019-03-06at7_40_51PM.thumb.png.83a5c3785890d05759792f8b31b87b28.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

So now you support media suppression, OK no worries. Just keep that in mind the next time you freak out when Trump dis invites MSNBC to some coverage.  

Prophetic.

While I understand that there's a Difference between one organisation having the right to choose what networks host a debate focused purely on your organisation and the President having the right to choose who he allows to question his policy etc..Trump clearly doesn't.

 

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump
More

Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump doesn't understand anything about democracy - or what it means to be American for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent..Trump can now justify his control of the Presidential debates, and press releases to his base... Just what he's always wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Excellent..Trump can now justify his control of the Presidential debates, and press releases to his base... Just what he's always wanted.

sort of.

Trump craves the adulation of his "home town press" and the national media. He wants the NYT and the WaPo to love him. He also knows they have the loudest voices nationally, so he & his family leak to them. Tump also realizes shitting on these national outlets is really useful to anger his Republican rubes. It's the ugly blend of PR showman, cynical political panderer, and narcissist that defines the Trumpera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I agree with most of that. 

The  only quibble is that most, if not all of those candidates will be getting funding from the government.  

To which my counter is "So what?". Not trying to bust your chops here, but since when did taking money from the government mean you had to let a for-profit corporation have any level of control over internal nomination processes of non-government organisations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bhyde said:

A mature, well-reasoned response from the duly elected leader of the free world. Ever the uniter...

170415294_ScreenShot2019-03-06at7_40_51PM.thumb.png.83a5c3785890d05759792f8b31b87b28.png

So.... he's going to block the Democrats from the General Election debates now? Meaning he's on stage, in front of the cameras, arguing with himself? I've heard of sundowners and all, but he supposedly posted this in the early afternoon. What excuse does he have for such stupidity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he is going to refuse to appear at debates on the actual news networks?  

That would be sorta great !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

So.... he's going to block the Democrats from the General Election debates now? Meaning he's on stage, in front of the cameras, arguing with himself? I've heard of sundowners and all, but he supposedly posted this in the early afternoon. What excuse does he have for such stupidity?

I'm hoping Dog or Joker or J28 can explain it, because it appears to me that Trump is simply an idiot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I'm hoping Dog or Joker or J28 can explain it, because it appears to me that Trump is simply an idiot. 

It's going to take a while for those talking points to percolate. It will probably have something to do with Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bret Baier tweets: That’s really a shame. When it comes to fairness - our news product speaks for itself.

Yes, Bret, it does. Kind of the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

So.... he's going to block the Democrats from the General Election debates now? Meaning he's on stage, in front of the cameras, arguing with himself? I've heard of sundowners and all, but he supposedly posted this in the early afternoon. What excuse does he have for such stupidity?

The same excuse he has for all his stupidity.

He's stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

All the Dems and progressives should be treating the FAUX Reich with the contempt it deserves. 

Jeez, the bothsidesism drives me nuts . .

Are you trying to insult Jews or Republican or both when you use the Reich label so casually? Are you antisemitic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Are you trying to insult Jews or Republican or both when you use the Reich label so casually? Are you antisemitic? 

Throw that cheese at the baby & see if it sticks:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bhyde said:

I'm hoping Dog or Joker or J28 can explain it, because it appears to me that Trump is simply an idiot. 

I think what he saying is that just like the Democrats he will not partisipate in any debate hosted by media he perceives to be biased against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Are you trying to insult Jews or Republican or both when you use the Reich label so casually? Are you antisemitic? 

So - references to the Hitler and the Third Reich are now insulting to Jews.  Just like saying anything bad about Israel.  Good to see you don't just echo the Republican talking points - you actually live them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Are you trying to insult Jews or Republican or both when you use the Reich label so casually? Are you antisemitic? 

I wish there was a way to just jump ahead to 666666 downvotes for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Joker said:

I hate to break it to you,  but most of us think you are already nuts.have you on ignore.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm having trouble squaring this with your support of the Sandeman/WaPo lawsuit, and ergo his lawyers use of threats to get people to apologize and perhaps settle for cash.

Ask what you'd like - perhaps I've said something wrong, perhaps you've got a point, and perhaps we're each misunderstanding what the other is saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Fox News has the right to thier perspective and it exists even if it shouldn’t.  They don’t have the right to moderate the political selection process of what is essentially the opposition party.

How do you not get that?

Moderate?  If that's the point, then I really missed something, I thought that they were not being permitted to attend to provide coverage and ask questions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites