Jump to content

Media behaving badly

Politics   (76,572 Views 865 Comments)
18,396 Visitors; 2,281 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 67 of Media behaving badly. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

4 hours ago, Tweety said:

I personally am concerned about Fox News and have been for years.   I think they were instrumental in influencing anti-Obama sentiment the minute he came into office, and towards the end when the economy was booming he was still unpopular and people were not getting the good news about the economy.  

I also think they were instrumental in the republicans crushing of democrats in 2010.

They are instrumental in tolerance of Trump and fear of Republican lawmakers for standing up against him.

It's the most popular cable news network and millions are brainwashed by it.  So yes, I am concerned.  

https://deadline.com/2019/10/fox-news-cable-news-network-ratings-1202749534/

Is easy to be concerned when the network promotes partisan animus and propaganda.  When faithful Fox News consumers have no clue about the details or facts of some of the most important political news of the day (cough\Mueller report/cough) but are fluent in the presidential denials, deflections and conspiracy theories, there's a problem and reason to be concerned. IMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

Yeah, sure.  The only explanation for any those things is that millions are brainwashed.

 

I said they are an influencer so please don't put words in my mouth like I said "the only explanation...." because that's not what I said.

I know this is a discussion board but some things like abortion, guns and Fox News I stay out of for lengthy discussions, but you can offer up more opinions as you have a right to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

I take it you don't have a problem with Schiff's actions, or lack of timely action?   No issue at all with the House not bothering with a vote for an official inquiry?  How about the fact there are hearings being held about what the whistleblower said, but for some reason we aren't hearing from that person directly?  No care at all about Biden's corrupted behavior?

 

What problem would there be with Schiff's actions?  The whistleblower initially sought to contact a congressional with their concerns and was correctly referred to the legally defined whistleblower process.  What should Schiff have done instead?

Based on the Constitutional requirements of an impeachment process as well as House rules and by-laws, there is no full house vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, the committees overseeing the inquiries refer the impeachment for a full house vote after the inquiry if deemed appropriate.  

We've heard from the whistleblower, I'm not sure what at this point they need to be questioned about.  If someone goes to the police and says they know who robbed the bank, and police investigate their claim and the person in question admits to robbing the bank, why would the informant be relevant?  Is questioning the informant going to undue the fact that the thief already admitted to the crime?

What "corrupt behavior" are you referring to?  I would agree there are plenty of reasons not to like Biden, but all you're doing throwing around baseless claims is decreasing the value of valid criticism of Biden.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amuses me when Trumpsters bring up Biden's so-called corrupt behavior, but neglect to mention or acknowledge the Trump family's long history of corruption.

In fact, the refuse to acknowledge the latest bits of the Trump family corruption.

Yep.

Just embrace the talking points brought forth by the corrupt man himself: Trump.

Gee, Jared Kusher's real estate deal in Saudi Arabia.

No corruption there, right?

How about Ivanka's trademarks in China?

No corruption, right?

😝😝😝😝😝😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let us not forget the biggest piece of Trump corruption.

Rudy Giuliani.

Yeah.

Nothing wrong with Trump's personal lawyer, flying around the world, trying to get foreign countries to help his client.

Giuliani doesn't work for you or me.

He works for DJT.

Hilarious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

Giuliani doesn't work for you or me.

He works for DJT.

Hilarious!

Does more than work for DJT. 😂😂😂 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.

There is at least one Right Wing politican in Iowa feeling the heat for being silent on Trump's criminal and otherwise problematic behavior.

Joni Ernst was forced to Bob and weave when asked by an Independent voter: Where is the line?

From CNN: 

Ernst Confronted By Iowan Constituent For Not 'Standing Up' To Trump

And Mitch McConnell is apparently fundraising on the promise of stopping Trump's impeachment.

Does a Trumpster want to tackle the topic of Mitch McConnell's corruption?

Share this post


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

We've heard from the whistleblower, I'm not sure what at this point they need to be questioned about.

 

I was just going to move on, but this made me laugh out loud.  It brought to mind Robrrt Mueller and how important it was that we needed to hear from him directly.

Of course we don't need to hear from the whistleblower.  why should a witness be cross examined?  We should just take and accept what they ( with Schiff's help) decided to include in a report.

Hilarious.

Share this post


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

 

I was just going to move on, but this made me laugh out loud.  It brought to mind Robrrt Mueller and how important it was that we needed to hear from him directly.

Of course we don't need to hear from the whistleblower.  why should a witness be cross examined?  We should just take and accept what they ( with Schiff's help) decided to include in a report.

Hilarious.

Trump has already released the call transcript and admitted that he did what the whistleblower claimed, and others in the administration have also confirmed the whistleblower's accusations, making the whistleblower's claims effectively moot at this point.

I get that there's desperation to discuss any other than the obvious; that Trump admittedly asked for a favor which was to have a foreign nation go after his political opponent and that was in the context of removing a hold on military aid, effectively offering something of value in exchange for a personal favor, but what is it you think the whistleblower should be asked that could potentially change any of this?

Share this post


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

Trump has already released the call transcript and admitted that he did what the whistleblower claimed, and others in the administration have also confirmed the whistleblower's accusations, making the whistleblower's claims effectively moot at this point.

I get that there's desperation to discuss any other than the obvious; that Trump admittedly asked for a favor which was to have a foreign nation go after his political opponent and that was in the context of removing a hold on military aid, effectively offering something of value in exchange for a personal favor, but what is it you think the whistleblower should be asked that could potentially change any of this?

 

If your version us true, then why are hearings being held?  What is there to say?  Doesn't it make sense that instead of a  bunch of lib windbags going on with their spin that we here from the whistleblower directly?

What else was there for Mueller to say?  We had to put him under oath.

Desperation?  Right.  By all means, keep talking about it.  If the Democrats think this is helping them, I'll be joyfully watching another liberal meltdown on election night.

 

Share this post


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

Trump has already released the call transcript and admitted that he did what the whistleblower claimed, and others in the administration have also confirmed the whistleblower's accusations, making the whistleblower's claims effectively moot at this point.

I get that there's desperation to discuss any other than the obvious; that Trump admittedly asked for a favor which was to have a foreign nation go after his political opponent and that was in the context of removing a hold on military aid, effectively offering something of value in exchange for a personal favor, but what is it you think the whistleblower should be asked that could potentially change any of this?

I agree.  It wasn't that the whistleblower made some claims and we are to just take their word for it.  This is why there was some time between the whistleblower reporting it to congress and the impeachment process.  They didn't just take their word for it, they investigated it.

Trump has said they want to interview the whistleblower to discredit them because they made some mistakes.  But doesn't say what those mistakes are.

Sometimes I don't know what to believe, but a man that makes things up and lies on practically a daily basis, that back pedals, that uses methods of distraction all the time really isn't someone I'm putting my trust in at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

Of course we don't need to hear from the whistleblower.  why should a witness be cross examined?  We should just take and accept what they ( with Schiff's help) decided to include in a report.

So you want the whistleblower identified? 

That would be good for your country wouldn't it. Nobody would ever again expose corruption, theft or even just stupidity. That is a dictatorship.

Anyway, even a quick Google shows that the whistleblower has some protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

 

Edited by GrumpyRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×