Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
gussy

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Trump said in the Wallace interview that he had no idea what Whitaker thought of the Mueller, and only hired him because of his credentials.

Not only is that a lie, but it is a dumb lie that takes two seconds to verify. Trump has been getting briefings from Whitaker for almost a year. He hired him in the first place after seeing Whitaker on CNN calling the investigation a hoax. 

Wallace did a good job, but he should have taken a cue from his father and dug into Trump a little deeper.

Agreed, he probably knew he wouldn't get a straight answer and he would just talk in circles, but wish these reporters would follow up with his answers questioning the validity of them.  Wallace knew he was going to ask this question so he should've had all the research done to ask a detailed follow up question to Trumps answer.  You don't need to be disrespectful asking it but I feel they could do a lot better job asking follow up.  Also with his fake news question, he could've had a list of items Trump cried fake news about that weren't fake, just not the spin Trump wanted of them, to show how he throws out fake news when it isn't.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox/gop history, Ailes plan has worked

If you haven’t read this article, you should. It shines a light on the goals of the creators of foxnews, how they gained market share (Clinton coverage) and how they amped up the rhetoric. 

What really struck me was that they started out as a “news entertainment” channel. 

“When Rupert Murdoch hired Ailes to head his network in 1996, the Republican political operative dreamed of creating a partisan news-entertainment network that sold conservatism in an angry and eye-popping way. The station would appeal to Americans who lived in "fly-over country" and felt their voices were being ignored by traditional media outlets. 

When the channel's viewership boomed as a result of its coverage of President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Ailes doubled down on this kind of pointed storytelling. The network also tried to package itself as legitimate journalism, bringing on serious reporters like Shep Smith and Alisyn Camerota”

 

I guess there’s a documentary coming out on this. But for those of you who watch foxnews and take it as the truth- read that carefully- “dreamed of creating a partisan news entertainment network.” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fox/gop history, Ailes plan has worked

If you haven’t read this article, you should. It shines a light on the goals of the creators of foxnews, how they gained market share (Clinton coverage) and how they amped up the rhetoric. 

What really struck me was that they started out as a “news entertainment” channel. 

“When Rupert Murdoch hired Ailes to head his network in 1996, the Republican political operative dreamed of creating a partisan news-entertainment network that sold conservatism in an angry and eye-popping way. The station would appeal to Americans who lived in "fly-over country" and felt their voices were being ignored by traditional media outlets. 

When the channel's viewership boomed as a result of its coverage of President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Ailes doubled down on this kind of pointed storytelling. The network also tried to package itself as legitimate journalism, bringing on serious reporters like Shep Smith and Alisyn Camerota”

 

I guess there’s a documentary coming out on this. But for those of you who watch foxnews and take it as the truth- read that carefully- “dreamed of creating a partisan news entertainment network.” 

Also funny that the station and it’s core demographic are the ones that scream most about negative coverage of Trump by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Also funny that the station and it’s core demographic are the ones that scream most about negative coverage of Trump by others.

It's really troubling to hear someone say that the media is bias or that the media cover Trump negatively when the day before Trump says something about how the media is evil, or grabbing a #####, or how elections are rigged. Is the media not supposed to cover that? Is the media supposed to put a positive spin on those things? Even if the media just reports the facts, how are those facts positive?

The negative media is a cause of a negative President. Hell, I could argue the media isn't negative enough and/or that the media shouldn't cover everything he says because the media is responsible for getting him elected. It's odd, funny, troubling, humoring, that Americas continue to like this dolt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, squistion said:

Finnish President “I never mentioned raking.”

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005903733.html

California Rep. Ted Lieu:

"If preventing wildfires was as easy as raking leaves we would’ve done that by now."

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-wrongly-states-california-wildfires-can-be-prevented-by-raking-1374210627770?v=raila&

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member