Discussion:
What liberal media?
Add Reply
FPP
2018-06-01 12:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“I would be more concerned about leaving her on the air if it were
more directly connected to the news that she was delivering,” Culver
said, “but I do think they run the risk of looking like they’re
giving her a free pass. They do have to be concerned about how this
appears.”
Yes... because if it's one thing Republicans have proved, it's that how
things appear that is ever so important.

Like how they looked supporting a president who pays off porn stars.

Like how they looked when they supported a child abuser and pedophile
for US Senate.

Like how they looked when they joked about a war hero and US Senator not
mattering because he was dying.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-01 15:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, Fox News ran a headline, "Tone-deaf MSNBC slammed for
bringing on Joy Reid to discuss Roseanne Barr's social media slur."
Wednesday night, Fox host Tucker Carlson aired a segment
highlighting decade-old posts in which Reid expressed views on
immigration that sounded straight from the "America First" playbook,
including that "flying the Mexican flag on U.S. soil strikes me as
incredibly presumptuous and insulting to the US".
LOL! Reid is an asshole, but I'm not going to criticize her when she
actually says something true.

Entering the US illegally, then bitching that the country you've
illegally entered isn't handing out enough freebies to you, while flying
the flag of the country you just fled, *is* presumptuous and insulting
to U.S. citizens who are providing all the largesse to the illegals.
trotsky
2018-06-02 10:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
On Tuesday, Fox News ran a headline, "Tone-deaf MSNBC slammed for
bringing on Joy Reid to discuss Roseanne Barr's social media slur."
Wednesday night, Fox host Tucker Carlson aired a segment
highlighting decade-old posts in which Reid expressed views on
immigration that sounded straight from the "America First" playbook,
including that "flying the Mexican flag on U.S. soil strikes me as
incredibly presumptuous and insulting to the US".
LOL! Reid is an asshole, but I'm not going to criticize her when she
actually says something true.
Entering the US illegally, then bitching that the country you've
illegally entered isn't handing out enough freebies to you, while flying
the flag of the country you just fled, *is* presumptuous and insulting
to U.S. citizens who are providing all the largesse to the illegals.
Wow, that's one of the more dumb fuck things you've said in a while.
Having pride in your country, and leaving that country when you become
less proud of it, is normal. And the cultural melting pot that is the
U.S. is one of the things that makes it great. You wouldn't complain
about a Mexican chick flying a Mexican flag if she was a hot piece of
ass you were trying to pursue so as ever you are a liar, hypocrite and
stupid motherfucking piece of crap that just needs to get the fuck off
this group. I'm trying to make this as easy for you as possible.
Ubiquitous
2018-06-16 05:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Two MSNBC analysts falsely claimed on Friday that the Trump
administration is operating concentration camps for illegal immigrant
children who are separated from their parents.

Guests Stephanie Cutter and Michael Steele made the remarks, which went
completely unchallenged by host Stephanie Ruhle.

Cutter, who was a high-level official in Barack Obama's 2012
presidential campaign, claimed that what the Trump administration is
doing was not the law, just merely their "interpretation" of the law.

"We can't find a solution to this problem without harming children?
Without putting them in concentration camps?" Cutter asked, according
to the Free Beacon.

Steele, who is the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee
(RNC), turned the rhetoric up a notch, warning Americans that their
children could be next.

"I call this a concentration camp for kids," Steele said. "When you
give kids 22 hours of lock-up time and two hours of airtime, what else
can it be? And if this is where this country's going, the American
people need to wake up and pay attention, because your kids could be
next."

WATCH:
Ryan Saavedra ????
MSNBC analysts claim that the Trump administration is
currently operating concentration camps.
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1007770184415830016
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2018-06-17 13:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CNN and MSNBC buried the inspector general report’s revelation that a
number of FBI agents were receiving unauthorized free handouts, such as
dinners and tickets, from reporters.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted in his
report on the Clinton investigation, which was released Thursday, that
his department found numerous instances in which FBI agents were
improperly in contact with reporters and were receiving a number of
free perks from their relationships.

The department “identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the
organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the
media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters.”

FBI agents’ relationships with the media extended to “improperly
receiving benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting
events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic
social events” and could have encouraged some agents to leak
information to the press, Horowitz implied in the report.

In fact, these relationships could have violated federal gift-giving
rules laid out by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. (RELATED:IG
Revelations On Agent/Journo Gift-Giving Could Be Federal Crimes)

Despite the serious potential implications of the IG’s findings, CNN
and MSNBC gave little coverage to that part of the report. It was only
ever mentioned on CNN twice — once by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham
and once by former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara — and received no
mentions in articles on their website.

MSNBC anchors were similarly mum about the story with the exception of
Ari Melber, host of “The Beat.” Melber dedicated at least two minutes
Thursday to the FBI’s obsession with its image in the media and a
little under a minute to the specific findings on improper contacts
with the media.

Melber also showed several charts from the IG report that showed the
extent of some reporters’ contacts with members of the FBI.

Melber’s report was an outlier rather than the norm, as he was the only
person on the network to even mention the FBI’s inappropriate contacts
with the media, according to a search of TV clipping service Grabien.

CNN and MSNBC reported plenty on other aspects of the IG report,
particularly the fact that Horowitz found no evidence that political
bias motivated former FBI director James Comey’s missteps in the
Clinton probe. Yet, they seemingly found the FBI’s culture of leaks and
the possibility that reporters were bribing sources to not be as
noteworthy.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-06-17 21:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CNN and MSNBC buried the inspector general report’s revelation that a
number of FBI agents were receiving unauthorized free handouts, such as
dinners and tickets, from reporters.
https://www.infowars.com/cnn-msnbc-bury-fbi-agents-getting-freebies-from-reporters/

Yeah... trust InfoWARS and Alex Jones for your news. That explains a lot!
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Ubiquitous
2018-06-17 22:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN and MSNBC buried the inspector general report’s revelation that a
number of FBI agents were receiving unauthorized free handouts, such as
dinners and tickets, from reporters.
https://www.infowars.com/cnn-msnbc-bury-fbi-agents-getting-freebies-from-reporters/
Yeah... trust InfoWARS and Alex Jones for your news. That explains a lot!
For starters, that's not where I get my news, but I guess that's also why you so conveniently removed that part from the article I quoted; you are unable to provide a rebuttal and counter example of the facts.
Post by FPP
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted in his
report on the Clinton investigation, which was released Thursday, that
his department found numerous instances in which FBI agents were
improperly in contact with reporters and were receiving a number of
free perks from their relationships.
The department “identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the
organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the
media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters.”
Despite the serious potential implications of the IG’s findings, CNN
and MSNBC gave little coverage to that part of the report. It was only
ever mentioned on CNN twice — once by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham
and once by former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara — and received no
mentions in articles on their website.
MSNBC anchors were similarly mum about the story with the exception of
Ari Melber, host of “The Beat.” Melber dedicated at least two minutes
Thursday to the FBI’s obsession with its image in the media and a
little under a minute to the specific findings on improper contacts
with the media.
Melber also showed several charts from the IG report that showed the
extent of some reporters’ contacts with members of the FBI.
Melber’s report was an outlier rather than the norm, as he was the only
person on the network to even mention the FBI’s inappropriate contacts
with the media, according to a search of TV clipping service Grabien.
CNN and MSNBC reported plenty on other aspects of the IG report,
particularly the fact that Horowitz found no evidence that political
bias motivated former FBI director James Comey’s missteps in the
Clinton probe. Yet, they seemingly found the FBI’s culture of leaks and
the possibility that reporters were bribing sources to not be as
noteworthy.
Do let us know when you are able to provide a counter-argument to the point.
I shant hold my breath b/c this is where you suddenly pretend to not have seen my followup, as your normal SOP when you've lost a debate here.

Ad hominem noted.
"Dowdification" noted.
Deflection noted.
Nonrersposnse noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
Ubiquitous
2018-06-19 01:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since
Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances
in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents
and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war
crimes and human rights violations.

The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June
15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS
detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six
mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four
comparisons to slavery.

On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a
tasteless Holocaust reference. “_Children are being marched away to
showers_,” he intoned, “_just like the Nazis said they were taking
people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think
they would use another trick_.”

Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a
miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom during
the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, “_Donald Trump increasingly looks like
Hitler in Nazi Germany_.” The following day, he appeared again on
Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical
take: “_Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi
Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration
camps_.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the
hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute
before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday.
Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their
attention to images of crying children that flashed across the
screen.

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-22-comparisons-immigration-
policy-holocaust-slavery

Media darling and former National Security Director General Michael
Hayden poured gasoline on the fire with a June 16 tweet featuring an
image of the Birkenau concentration camp along with the text, “Other
governments have separated mothers and children,”:

While cooler heads in the media condemned this comparison, Hayden
later defended those statements during two CNN appearances on
Monday. “Now look, I know we’re not Nazi Germany,” he said on New
Day, “_but there is a commonality there_.”

He repeated that point on The Situation Room that same day: “I knew
it would be controversial, but I felt a warning flare was
necessary.” Hayden’s tweet was also featured on five different MSNBC
shows on Monday, with hosts such as Nicolle Wallace of Deadline:
White House and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC Live appearing reluctant
even to criticize the comparison. “We don’t want to go too far, but
is this warning valid?” Ruhle pondered anxiously on her 9 a.m. show.

Some pundits too squeamish for Holocaust references instead made
overtures to America’s Japanese internment camps from World War II.
MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart mentioned both those camps and
the Trail of Tears on AM Joy, adding that he felt the practice was
“very American.” Leadership Development Strategist Kwame Jackson
echoed Capehart’s point later that day on MSNBC Live with Yasmin
Vossoughian:

We’re also talking about a legacy of this in the United
States of America, whether it was Native American family
separation, whether it was African slave separation,
whether it was the Japanese internment camps. So this is
a long line that we’re actually hearkening back to, that
we really should be ashamed of and look at where we come
from historically.

So absurd was the media's melodrama that even CNN’s Brian Stelter
felt the need to step in and pump the proverbial brakes. On Sunday’s
Reliable Sources, he posed a challenge to his guests: “_Doesn’t the
tone of this coverage offend a great deal of Americans who feel that
the real scandal is that people are entering the country illegally
in the first place_?”

--
"We have got to send a clear message, that just because your child gets across
the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. We don't want to send a
message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make
that dangerous journey."
FPP
2018-06-19 22:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy.
Glad you child abuse lovers can understand that.
Now you can go back to making your little yellow stars.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Ubiquitous
2018-06-20 01:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since
Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances
in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents
and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war
crimes and human rights violations.
The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June
15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS
detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six
mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four
comparisons to slavery.
On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a
tasteless Holocaust reference. “_Children are being marched away to
showers_,” he intoned, “_just like the Nazis said they were taking
people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think
they would use another trick_.”
Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a
miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom during
the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, “_Donald Trump increasingly looks like
Hitler in Nazi Germany_.” The following day, he appeared again on
Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical
take: “_Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi
Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration
camps_.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the
hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute
before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday.
Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their
attention to images of crying children that flashed across the
screen.
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-22-comparisons-immigration-
policy-holocaust-slavery
Media darling and former National Security Director General Michael
Hayden poured gasoline on the fire with a June 16 tweet featuring an
image of the Birkenau concentration camp along with the text, “Other
While cooler heads in the media condemned this comparison, Hayden
later defended those statements during two CNN appearances on
Monday. “Now look, I know we’re not Nazi Germany,” he said on New
Day, “_but there is a commonality there_.”
He repeated that point on The Situation Room that same day: “I knew
it would be controversial, but I felt a warning flare was
necessary.” Hayden’s tweet was also featured on five different MSNBC
White House and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC Live appearing reluctant
even to criticize the comparison. “We don’t want to go too far, but
is this warning valid?” Ruhle pondered anxiously on her 9 a.m. show.
Some pundits too squeamish for Holocaust references instead made
overtures to America’s Japanese internment camps from World War II.
MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart mentioned both those camps and
the Trail of Tears on AM Joy, adding that he felt the practice was
“very American.” Leadership Development Strategist Kwame Jackson
echoed Capehart’s point later that day on MSNBC Live with Yasmin
We’re also talking about a legacy of this in the United
States of America, whether it was Native American family
separation, whether it was African slave separation,
whether it was the Japanese internment camps. So this is
a long line that we’re actually hearkening back to, that
we really should be ashamed of and look at where we come
from historically.
So absurd was the media's melodrama that even CNN’s Brian Stelter
felt the need to step in and pump the proverbial brakes. On Sunday’s
Reliable Sources, he posed a challenge to his guests: “_Doesn’t the
tone of this coverage offend a great deal of Americans who feel that
the real scandal is that people are entering the country illegally
in the first place_?”
Glad you child abuse lovers can understand that.
Now you can go back to making your little yellow stars.
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin's Law violation noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
"We have got to send a clear message, that just because your child gets across
the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. We don't want to send a
message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make
that dangerous journey."
Ubiquitous
2018-06-20 01:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since
Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances
in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents
and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war
crimes and human rights violations.
The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June
15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS
detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six
mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four
comparisons to slavery.
On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a
tasteless Holocaust reference. “_Children are being marched away to
showers_,” he intoned, “_just like the Nazis said they were taking
people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think
they would use another trick_.”
Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a
miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom during
the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, “_Donald Trump increasingly looks like
Hitler in Nazi Germany_.” The following day, he appeared again on
Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical
take: “_Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi
Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration
camps_.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the
hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute
before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday.
Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their
attention to images of crying children that flashed across the
screen.
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-22-comparisons-immigration-
policy-holocaust-slavery
Media darling and former National Security Director General Michael
Hayden poured gasoline on the fire with a June 16 tweet featuring an
image of the Birkenau concentration camp along with the text, “Other
While cooler heads in the media condemned this comparison, Hayden
later defended those statements during two CNN appearances on
Monday. “Now look, I know we’re not Nazi Germany,” he said on New
Day, “_but there is a commonality there_.”
He repeated that point on The Situation Room that same day: “I knew
it would be controversial, but I felt a warning flare was
necessary.” Hayden’s tweet was also featured on five different MSNBC
White House and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC Live appearing reluctant
even to criticize the comparison. “We don’t want to go too far, but
is this warning valid?” Ruhle pondered anxiously on her 9 a.m. show.
Some pundits too squeamish for Holocaust references instead made
overtures to America’s Japanese internment camps from World War II.
MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart mentioned both those camps and
the Trail of Tears on AM Joy, adding that he felt the practice was
“very American.” Leadership Development Strategist Kwame Jackson
echoed Capehart’s point later that day on MSNBC Live with Yasmin
We’re also talking about a legacy of this in the United
States of America, whether it was Native American family
separation, whether it was African slave separation,
whether it was the Japanese internment camps. So this is
a long line that we’re actually hearkening back to, that
we really should be ashamed of and look at where we come
from historically.
So absurd was the media's melodrama that even CNN’s Brian Stelter
felt the need to step in and pump the proverbial brakes. On Sunday’s
Reliable Sources, he posed a challenge to his guests: “_Doesn’t the
tone of this coverage offend a great deal of Americans who feel that
the real scandal is that people are entering the country illegally
in the first place_?”
Glad you child abuse lovers can understand that.
Now you can go back to making your little yellow stars.
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin's Law violation noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
"We have got to send a clear message, that just because your child gets across
the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. We don't want to send a
message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make
that dangerous journey."
FPP
2018-06-20 02:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since
Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances
in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents
and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war
crimes and human rights violations.
The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June
15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS
detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six
mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four
comparisons to slavery.
On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a
tasteless Holocaust reference. “_Children are being marched away to
showers_,” he intoned, “_just like the Nazis said they were taking
people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think
they would use another trick_.”
Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a
miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom during
the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, “_Donald Trump increasingly looks like
Hitler in Nazi Germany_.” The following day, he appeared again on
Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical
take: “_Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi
Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration
camps_.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the
hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute
before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday.
Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their
attention to images of crying children that flashed across the
screen.
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-22-comparisons-immigration-
policy-holocaust-slavery
Media darling and former National Security Director General Michael
Hayden poured gasoline on the fire with a June 16 tweet featuring an
image of the Birkenau concentration camp along with the text, “Other
While cooler heads in the media condemned this comparison, Hayden
later defended those statements during two CNN appearances on
Monday. “Now look, I know we’re not Nazi Germany,” he said on New
Day, “_but there is a commonality there_.”
He repeated that point on The Situation Room that same day: “I knew
it would be controversial, but I felt a warning flare was
necessary.” Hayden’s tweet was also featured on five different MSNBC
White House and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC Live appearing reluctant
even to criticize the comparison. “We don’t want to go too far, but
is this warning valid?” Ruhle pondered anxiously on her 9 a.m. show.
Some pundits too squeamish for Holocaust references instead made
overtures to America’s Japanese internment camps from World War II.
MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart mentioned both those camps and
the Trail of Tears on AM Joy, adding that he felt the practice was
“very American.” Leadership Development Strategist Kwame Jackson
echoed Capehart’s point later that day on MSNBC Live with Yasmin
We’re also talking about a legacy of this in the United
States of America, whether it was Native American family
separation, whether it was African slave separation,
whether it was the Japanese internment camps. So this is
a long line that we’re actually hearkening back to, that
we really should be ashamed of and look at where we come
from historically.
So absurd was the media's melodrama that even CNN’s Brian Stelter
felt the need to step in and pump the proverbial brakes. On Sunday’s
Reliable Sources, he posed a challenge to his guests: “_Doesn’t the
tone of this coverage offend a great deal of Americans who feel that
the real scandal is that people are entering the country illegally
in the first place_?”
Glad you child abuse lovers can understand that.
Now you can go back to making your little yellow stars.
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin's Law violation noted.
Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
Don't you ever tire of saying nothing?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Ubiquitous
2018-06-20 03:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump
administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since
Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances
in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents
and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war
crimes and human rights violations.
The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June
15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS
detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six
mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four
comparisons to slavery.
On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a
tasteless Holocaust reference. “_Children are being marched away to
showers_,” he intoned, “_just like the Nazis said they were taking
people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think
they would use another trick_.”
Over the weekend, CNN political commentator Dave Jacobson threw a
miniature tantrum over the policy. On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom during
the 10 a.m. hour, he opined, “_Donald Trump increasingly looks like
Hitler in Nazi Germany_.” The following day, he appeared again on
Newsroom in the afternoon to embellish on his already hysterical
take: “_Increasingly, Donald Trump is turning this nation into Nazi
Germany and turning these [detention centers] into concentration
camps_.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, evidently eager to join in the
hyperventilating excitement, managed to last less than a minute
before evoking concentration camps while hosting Hardball on Monday.
Throughout the show, he repeatedly interrupted guests to draw their
attention to images of crying children that flashed across the
screen.
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cable-news-22-comparisons-immigration-
policy-holocaust-slavery
Media darling and former National Security Director General Michael
Hayden poured gasoline on the fire with a June 16 tweet featuring an
image of the Birkenau concentration camp along with the text, “Other
While cooler heads in the media condemned this comparison, Hayden
later defended those statements during two CNN appearances on
Monday. “Now look, I know we’re not Nazi Germany,” he said on New
Day, “_but there is a commonality there_.”
He repeated that point on The Situation Room that same day: “I knew
it would be controversial, but I felt a warning flare was
necessary.” Hayden’s tweet was also featured on five different MSNBC
White House and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC Live appearing reluctant
even to criticize the comparison. “We don’t want to go too far, but
is this warning valid?” Ruhle pondered anxiously on her 9 a.m. show.
Some pundits too squeamish for Holocaust references instead made
overtures to America’s Japanese internment camps from World War II.
MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart mentioned both those camps and
the Trail of Tears on AM Joy, adding that he felt the practice was
“very American.” Leadership Development Strategist Kwame Jackson
echoed Capehart’s point later that day on MSNBC Live with Yasmin
We’re also talking about a legacy of this in the United
States of America, whether it was Native American family
separation, whether it was African slave separation,
whether it was the Japanese internment camps. So this is
a long line that we’re actually hearkening back to, that
we really should be ashamed of and look at where we come
from historically.
So absurd was the media's melodrama that even CNN’s Brian Stelter
felt the need to step in and pump the proverbial brakes. On Sunday’s
Reliable Sources, he posed a challenge to his guests: “_Doesn’t the
tone of this coverage offend a great deal of Americans who feel that
the real scandal is that people are entering the country illegally
in the first place_?”
Glad you child abuse lovers can understand that.
Now you can go back to making your little yellow stars.
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin's Law violation noted.
Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
Don't you ever tire of saying nothing?
Don't you ever get tired of losing debates with me?
Ubiquitous
2018-07-09 09:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On the morning of July 6, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics announced that Hispanic unemployment in the United
States had reached its lowest level, 4.6%, in the 45 years since the
agency first started keeping records on the statistic, back in 1973.

One would think such a historic achievement would be news that night
on the nation’s leading Spanish-language television news programs,
but that was not the case. The principal national evening newscasts
of Univision and Telemundo (sister network of NBC), along with their
lesser-known rivals Azteca América and Estrella TV, all kept silent
about the record low, and its significance for the country’s Latino
population.

Specifically, during the milestone month of June 2018, a net 164,000
Hispanics entered the U.S. workforce (employed or actively looking
for work), while employment per the Household Survey increased by
250,000, leading to 86,000 fewer unemployed. The principal,
Washington-based U.S. Spanish-language news program of CNN en
Español, Directo USA, also passed on reporting the historic news
that evening, as did NTN24’s evening Informativo.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then candidate Donald Trump
repeatedly pledged to “create jobs and opportunities for African-
Americans and Hispanic Americans that have been failed so badly.”
The networks’ stone-cold silence, in the face of the evidence of the
Trump administration’s fulfillment of that pledge for Hispanics,
African-Americans and the country as a whole, is as clear an
indication as any of the depth of the bias that clouds and sullies
the news judgement of these media outlets.

While Univision, Telemundo, Azteca América, Estrella TV, CNN en
Español and NTN24 had no time in their principal evening news
programs on July 6 for reporting on the record low Latino
unemployment rate, they did have plenty of time to devote to all
kinds of other, less consequential topics, such as Telemundo’s
feature on International Kissing Day, not to mention never skimping
any opportunity to report the latest from the World Cup.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-07-09 18:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
One would think such a historic achievement would be news that night
on the nation’s leading Spanish-language television news programs,
but that was not the case.
Guess they were busy listening to the cries of children in cages, and
got distracted.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
Ubiquitous
2018-07-09 18:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
One would think such a historic achievement would be news that night
on the nation’s leading Spanish-language television news programs,
but that was not the case.
Guess they were busy listening to the cries of children in cages, and
got distracted.
The premise of your statement is incorrect.
Unlike you, they recognise a bogus baseless story.
Do let us know when you find sopme proof for your conspiracy story.

P.S.
Does this mean you got your GoogleAlerts operating properly
or you got tired of going into hiding?
Ubiquitous
2018-07-13 02:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the
significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center
for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned
Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American
Progress, all got screen time.

Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular
argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.”
Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage
Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could
offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.

Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator
Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows,
Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from
New Jersey.

Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all
played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest
against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single
Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.

Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former
Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam
Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were
present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from
Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise
spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-
Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post,
there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.

For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers
saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of
an otherwise qualified nominee.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-07-13 02:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.

That makes 4 hours, not that you can count that high.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
Ubiquitous
2018-07-13 09:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
That makes 4 hours, not that you can count that high.
Well, there you go trying to use ad hominems as a debating technique when
you've lost the debate again!
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the
significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center
for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned
Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American
Progress, all got screen time.
Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular
argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.”
Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage
Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could
offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.
Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator
Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows,
Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from
New Jersey.
Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all
played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest
against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single
Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.
Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former
Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam
Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were
present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from
Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise
spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-
Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post,
there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.
For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers
saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of
an otherwise qualified nominee.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means cite GL if you think some Nazi comparison is baseless,
needlessly inflammatory or hyperbolic."
4:05 AM - June 24, 2018
FPP
2018-07-13 14:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
That makes 4 hours, not that you can count that high.
Well, there you go trying to use ad hominems as a debating technique when
you've lost the debate again!
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the
significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center
for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned
Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American
Progress, all got screen time.
Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular
argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.”
Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage
Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could
offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.
Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator
Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows,
Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from
New Jersey.
Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all
played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest
against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single
Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.
Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former
Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam
Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were
present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from
Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise
spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-
Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post,
there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.
For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers
saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of
an otherwise qualified nominee.
Once again, Ubi and NoUbi declare "victory" in another "debate" neither
of them ever had.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
NoBody
2018-07-14 14:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative...
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Post by FPP
That makes 4 hours, not that you can count that high.
Well, there you go trying to use ad hominems as a debating technique when
you've lost the debate again!
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the
significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center
for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned
Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American
Progress, all got screen time.
Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular
argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.”
Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage
Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could
offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.
Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator
Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows,
Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from
New Jersey.
Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all
played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest
against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single
Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.
Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former
Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam
Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were
present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from
Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise
spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-
Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post,
there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.
For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers
saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of
an otherwise qualified nominee.
Once again, Ubi and NoUbi declare "victory" in another "debate" neither
of them ever had.
Poor, deluded FPP. Interesting fantasy world he lives in.
NoBody
2018-07-13 12:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Scarborough is NOT a conservative.
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.
Ditto.
Post by FPP
That makes 4 hours, not that you can count that high.
Apparently it is YOU who can not count.
Ubiquitous
2018-07-13 17:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Scarborough is NOT a conservative.
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.
Ditto.
I guess to someone who watches MSNBC, they would seem conservative in
comparison.
LOL!!
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means cite GL if you think some Nazi comparison is baseless,
needlessly inflammatory or hyperbolic."
4:05 AM - June 24, 2018
FPP
2018-07-13 20:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Scarborough is NOT a conservative.
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.
Ditto.
I guess to someone who watches MSNBC, they would seem conservative in
comparison.
LOL!!
Yeah... next you'll tell us Trump isn't a Russian cooze-hound, either!
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
A Friend
2018-07-13 21:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Scarborough is NOT a conservative.
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.
Ditto.
I guess to someone who watches MSNBC, they would seem conservative in
comparison.
LOL!!
Yeah... next you'll tell us Trump isn't a Russian cooze-hound, either!
Scarborough and Wallace are conservatives, but they are not Trump
supporters. There is a difference. This will be more clear a few
years from now, when the party runs away from Trump like it ran away
from Richard Nixon.

If Trump gets a second term, the runaway will happen about a year, year
and a half into it.
NoBody
2018-07-14 14:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Scarborough is a conservative... he had 3 hours.
Scarborough is NOT a conservative.
Post by FPP
Nicole Wallace is a conservative... she had an hour.
Ditto.
I guess to someone who watches MSNBC, they would seem conservative in
comparison.
LOL!!
Yeah... next you'll tell us Trump isn't a Russian cooze-hound, either!
Scarborough and Wallace are conservatives, but they are not Trump
supporters. There is a difference. This will be more clear a few
years from now, when the party runs away from Trump like it ran away
from Richard Nixon.
They aren't conservatives period. One merely needs to listen to their
words to know that they aren't. They also have the appearance of wax
figures.
Mitchell Holman
2018-07-13 13:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of
their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of
the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to
midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the
significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center
for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned
Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American
Progress, all got screen time.
Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular
argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.”
Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage
Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could
offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.
Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator
Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows,
Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from
New Jersey.
Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all
played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest
against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single
Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.
Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former
Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam
Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were
present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from
Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise
spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-
Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post,
there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.
For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers
saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of
an otherwise qualified nominee.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take
time out from complaining how the media is
"dominated by liberals" and "conservatives
can't get their message out" to complain that
the giving both sides equal time via the
Fairness Doctrine would stifle their voices.
Ubiquitous
2018-07-14 02:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hang up your hats, Kavanaugh fans. Prepare yourselves for an epic
Borking in the Senate.

Thanks to some class-A truth-seeking at The Washington Post, the
unsuspecting public now knows the great scandal that President Trump has
heaped upon them with his SCOTUS pick: Judge Kavanaugh once had credit
card debt. But wait, there's more (and this is truly egregious), he then
had the audacity to pay it off.

After diving into judge Kavanaugh's finances for 2016, WaPo discovered
that the SCOTUS nominee had anywhere between $60,000 and $200,000 in
debt, which he then paid off the following year.

The debt reportedly stemmed from three credit cards and a Thrift Savings
Plan Loan, a significant portion of which came from Washington Nationals
baseball season tickets he had purchased for a "handful" of friends
along with his family. Another significant portion came from housing
expenses, according to White House spokesman Raj Shah. By 2017,
Kavanaugh paid most of it off:

The credit card debts and loan were either paid off or fell
below the reporting requirements in 2017, according to the
filings, which do not require details on the nature or source
of such payments. Shah told The Post that Kavanaugh’s friends
reimbursed him for their share of the baseball tickets and
that the judge has since stopped purchasing the season tickets.

As if to further imply that something nefarious had taken place, the
Post noted that "Shah did not provide the names of the friends" for whom
Kavanaugh had purchased tickets.

The report then explores Judge Kavanaugh's net worth and financial
assets, which clock somewhere in the neighborhood between $15,000 and
$65,000. Shah also confirmed the judge has a retirement account "worth
nearly half a million dollars." For his home, which he and his wife
purchased for close to a million dollars, Kavanaugh owes $865,000.

This puts Kavanaugh on track to earning the title of poorest justice on
the Supreme Court, if confirmed.

Unlike Kavanaugh's potential colleagues, much of his career has been
spent in the public sector, where he has earned the majority of his
income.

The Post concludes its article noting that the Kavanaughs send their two
daughters to Catholic school, which costs $10,025 per child. Exactly
what any of this has to do with Kavanaugh's judicial responsibility was
lost on many readers:

Terri Reynolds Bunch @TerribunchMrsca
Why do we care about his debt? I care about his voting record.

Ben Jammin ???? @xBenJamminx
"The credit card debts and loan were either paid off or fell
below the reporting requirements in 2017, according to the
filings"

Rendering this entire article as pointless. If this is your
idea of a hit piece, you're going to have a longgg 8 years
of Trump and his 3-4 Justices

Bye Stastny ???? #GOJETSGO @SKBigBluJetsfan
So he incurred credit card debt and (as finally revealed many
paragraphs later) paid it off?!

There is some INCREDIBLE investigative reporting!

Tom @Tom82503812
Washington Post is showing how pathetic their case is
against K. What a bunch of pathetic losers

#WhatLiberalMedia
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-07-16 04:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Hang up your hats, Kavanaugh fans. Prepare yourselves for an epic
Borking in the Senate.
Thanks to some class-A truth-seeking at The Washington Post, the
unsuspecting public now knows the great scandal that President Trump has
heaped upon them with his SCOTUS pick: Judge Kavanaugh once had credit
card debt.
Nobody cares.
What people will care about is Roe V Wade.
What we care about is pre-existing conditions.
What we care about is Trump picking someone who may judge the guy who
just picked him.

Almost nobody cares about his debt of his baseball tickets.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
BTR1701
2018-07-16 05:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Hang up your hats, Kavanaugh fans. Prepare yourselves for an epic
Borking in the Senate.
Thanks to some class-A truth-seeking at The Washington Post, the
unsuspecting public now knows the great scandal that President Trump has
heaped upon them with his SCOTUS pick: Judge Kavanaugh once had credit
card debt.
Almost nobody cares about his debt of his baseball tickets.
Except for the star sleuths at the Washington Post, apparently.
FPP
2018-07-16 06:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Hang up your hats, Kavanaugh fans. Prepare yourselves for an epic
Borking in the Senate.
Thanks to some class-A truth-seeking at The Washington Post, the
unsuspecting public now knows the great scandal that President Trump has
heaped upon them with his SCOTUS pick: Judge Kavanaugh once had credit
card debt.
Almost nobody cares about his debt of his baseball tickets.
Except for the star sleuths at the Washington Post, apparently.
Did they run an expose? I must have missed it.
Hopefully, you checked all their spelling and punctuation.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
Ubiquitous
2018-07-16 05:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Hang up your hats, Kavanaugh fans. Prepare yourselves for an epic
Borking in the Senate.
Thanks to some class-A truth-seeking at The Washington Post, the
unsuspecting public now knows the great scandal that President Trump has
heaped upon them with his SCOTUS pick: Judge Kavanaugh once had credit
card debt.
Nobody cares.
Almost nobody cares about his debt of his baseball tickets.
The Washington Post did, apparently.
Ubiquitous
2018-07-31 01:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more
interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with
Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a
presidential campaign.

On Saturday night, heavily redacted copies of the FBI’s application
to wiretap Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page were released. The
portion of the 412-page document that was not redacted supported the
claims of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.),
as well as those made by the majority of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.

The senators and the representatives had issued reports alleging
that the FBI used an unverified Clinton campaign document to secure
a wiretap against an American citizen, that the application for the
wiretap used circular reporting and lacked verification for its
central claims, and that it made materially false claims related to
the source’s credibility.

President Trump tweeted triumphantly and hyperbolically about what
the documents showed regarding the FBI’s behavior toward his
campaign. Whatever you think about Trump’s reaction to the release
of the FISA application, the media reaction to the story was
disingenuous and even more hyperbolic than the president’s tweets.
After a year of continuous and alarming revelations, the media are
still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously
colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied
on a presidential campaign, and used dubious partisan political
research to justify their surveillance.

The media reaction to both the redacted Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap applications and President Trump’s
tweets was pure gaslighting. They claimed the FISA applications hurt
the critics’ case. It wasn’t that they reported the news that
critics of the FISA application felt vindicated while defenders of
the wiretap applications also felt vindicated. They wrote as
partisans in a war with those skeptical of FISA abuse.

The New York Times went with both “Without Evidence, Trump Claims
Vindication From Release of Carter Page Documents” and “How a Trump
Decision Revealed a G.O.P. Memo’s Shaky Foundation.” The latter
headline was in reference to the House Intelligence report. The
accompanying article completely ignored the criminal referral from
Graham and Grassley that buttressed the HPSCI allegations.

USA Today went with “President Trump, allies dismiss revelations in
new court documents tied to Russia probe.” The Washington Post went
on a days-long tantrum. See, for example, “Carter Page FISA warrants
underscore the difficulty of disproving presidential falsehoods,”
“The Carter Page wiretap dispute isn’t a fair fight,” and an error-
riddled, tangent-laden “fact” “check” headlined “Over four days,
false claims dominated Trump’s Twitter feed.”

When Facts Get In The Way Of Narratives

This is part of a pattern for the media when they encounter facts
related to the surveillance of the Trump campaign. When Department
of Justice officials leaked to the media that they had run at least
one informant against the Trump campaign, a breathtaking admission
by any sense of news judgment, the news was buried in the middle of
the story and completely downplayed.

Others joined in with the gaslighting, spending weeks arguing — and
I’m not joking here — that running a secret government informant
against a campaign is not spying on a campaign.

The Times headline was — hand to God — “F.B.I. Used Informant to
Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
CNN contributor and Obama director of national intelligence James
Clapper told the viewing audience that actually “it was a good
thing” that Trump’s campaign was spied on. A Washington Post
journalist wrote in defense of obscuring the spying: “Trump’s win:
We’re debating a ‘spy,’ not an ‘informant.'”

Blaming Republicans For Comprehending Facts

If you go back to last year, CNN’s Jake Tapper mocked and derided
Republican voters who told pollsters they thought the Obama
administration had spied on the Trump campaign. This mockery took
place _after_ CNN reported that … the Obama administration had spied
on Page!


Still, he called it the definition of fake news and compared it to
believing in ghosts.

32 percent of the public thinks President Obama
intentionally spied on Donald Trump and members of his
campaign and 52 percent of Republicans believe this charge.
A charge that there is literally no evidence to support.
It is the definition of fake news.

Now, look, this is America and you can believe whatever
you want to believe. 18 percent of the public says they’ve
seen or been in the presence of a ghost. I mean whatever.
But in a thriving democracy, truth matters and facts matter.

Again, this segment aired weeks after CNN itself reported that the
Obama administration had secured a wiretap to spy on Page.

What We Know of FBI’s Trump Campaign Surveillance

Sometimes it’s good to take a step back from a complicated story and
view it from a distance. Rather than think about whether the wiretap
application against Carter Page supports this party or that party,
let’s just take a moment to reflect on where the story stands.

In January 2017, days before Trump’s inauguration, high-level
intelligence officials leaked to CNN the news that “Intel chiefs
presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.”
The Hillary Clinton campaign had latched onto “Russia” as an
explanation for her loss, encouraging a largely compliant media to
hype up reports of Russian meddling in the election.

This leak enabled the media to discuss the “salacious and
unverified” (in former FBI director James Comey’s words) gossip that
was in a dossier. For the next year and many months into this year,
this leak and other leaks from intelligence officials fed a theory
that President Trump was a traitor who had conspired with Russia to
steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

A few lonely skeptics of the Grand Russia Theory began asking
questions about the dossier, its provenance, its weaponization, and
the larger investigation into the Trump campaign. Fighting against
an incredible media onslaught, they discovered things the media and
their cadre of leakers had not shared with the American public. And
they’re important.

1. Hillary Clinton and the DNC Secretly Paid for the Dossier

When the dossier first appeared on the scene, it was portrayed as a
top-notch intelligence product put together by a top-notch
intelligence official whose work history was credible.

It turned out to have been secretly bought and paid for by Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme
care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm
that hired the Democratic researchers to cook up the dossier. The
research product was then funneled to the media and the federal
government.

Republican investigators found this out over the strenuous
objections and process wrangling of Democratic members such as Rep.
Adam Schiff, who fought tooth and nail to keep the funding of the
dossier hidden. This information was leaked to friendly media only
under pressure from congressional investigators.

This fact of the funding was obscured, just as the HPSCI report
said, by the FBI in a page-long word salad when they applied to a
secret court to wiretap a Trump affiliate. It was obscured so well
that Comey, who signed one of the applications, could get away with
claiming he had no idea that Clinton and the DNC funded the dossier.

Speaking of gaslighting, CBS News ran an Associated Press “fact”
“check” that claimed “It’s not correct to call the Steele dossier a
‘Clinton Campaign document.'”

2. The Dossier Was Used to Secure a Wiretap Against a Trump
Affiliate

When CNN received its leak about the dossier from highly placed
intelligence officials, it reported as if the dossier was a
legitimate piece of research that sober-minded intelligence agencies
took very seriously. The unintentional hero of the story was
BuzzFeed, which ran the actual dossier in all its glory.

Americans learned that the dossier claimed a senior advisor to Trump
and three of his colleagues had met with Kremlin operatives in
Prague in late August or early September to undermine the Clinton
campaign. They also learned the Russians had a file of “kompromat”
on Trump, including an amazing story about him renting a hotel room
that the Obamas had used and paying prostitutes to urinate on the
bed.

People could see for themselves how ridiculous, preposterous, and
immediately debunkable some of the most important claims were. The
revelation of how fever-dreamed and sophomoric the dossier was, at
least in major parts, cast doubt on the wisdom of the top political
brass at intelligence agencies, much less their propriety and
ability to handle information with any discretion. Obviously they
were leaking like sieves in an ongoing war against the president-
elect.

Then Grassley began asking some rather serious questions that
suggested the dossier might have been used to secure a wiretap
against a Trump campaign affiliate. That’s when the defensive leak
to a friendly media outlet occurred, and we learned the dossier had
in fact been used to secure a wiretap against Page.

Trump critics say that since Page wasn’t on the Trump campaign at
the time of the wiretap, it wasn’t really surveillance of the
campaign. There are multiple problems with that. One is that
wiretaps can be used to obtain information into the past, of the
time Page was on the campaign. Another is that the wiretap would
capture communications with any Trump campaign members Page spoke
with. Another is that the FBI itself claimed in its wiretap
application that Page was the conduit between Russia and the
campaign.

The case against Page laid out in the wiretap application began with
an unverified claim pulled straight out of the dossier. When Page
responded to public reporting of the dossier’s claims by denying it,
that was also mentioned in the application. The geniuses at the FBI
wrote that they don’t believe the news reports of the dossier claims
were fed by the dossier author, all evidence to the contrary.

3. Informants Were Run against the Trump Campaign

For most Americans, the idea that the FBI would run <s>secret
government spies</s> human informants against the Republican Party’s
presidential campaign is a huge scandal. It happened, according to
government leakers who told friendly media outlets. Again:

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign
aides in those early months, congressional investigators
revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn,
Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current
and former officials said…

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national
security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And
at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page
and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

If the FBI genuinely believed that Russians were trying to illegally
infiltrate the Trump campaign, the proper course of action would be
to give the Trump campaign a defensive briefing warning them of the
efforts. To run <s>spies</s> human informants, wiretaps, national
security letters, and other surveillance against the campaign is
truly breathtaking and invasive.

4. The FBI Also Used Secret Subpoenas Against the Trump Campaign
From the same excerpt above:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents
using national security letters — a secret type of
subpoena — officials said.

You can, along with the partisan and gaslighting media, claim it’s
not a big deal to run human informants or secretly gather
intelligence against a presidential campaign. But you can not deny
it happened.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Hass
2018-07-31 11:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more
Hehe...The Federalist...
Ubiquitous
2018-08-03 15:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hass
Post by Ubiquitous
After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more
interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with
Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a
presidential campaign.
On Saturday night, heavily redacted copies of the FBI’s application
to wiretap Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page were released. The
portion of the 412-page document that was not redacted supported the
claims of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.),
as well as those made by the majority of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The senators and the representatives had issued reports alleging
that the FBI used an unverified Clinton campaign document to secure
a wiretap against an American citizen, that the application for the
wiretap used circular reporting and lacked verification for its
central claims, and that it made materially false claims related to
the source’s credibility.
President Trump tweeted triumphantly and hyperbolically about what
the documents showed regarding the FBI’s behavior toward his
campaign. Whatever you think about Trump’s reaction to the release
of the FISA application, the media reaction to the story was
disingenuous and even more hyperbolic than the president’s tweets.
After a year of continuous and alarming revelations, the media are
still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously
colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied
on a presidential campaign, and used dubious partisan political
research to justify their surveillance.
The media reaction to both the redacted Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap applications and President Trump’s
tweets was pure gaslighting. They claimed the FISA applications hurt
the critics’ case. It wasn’t that they reported the news that
critics of the FISA application felt vindicated while defenders of
the wiretap applications also felt vindicated. They wrote as
partisans in a war with those skeptical of FISA abuse.
The New York Times went with both “Without Evidence, Trump Claims
Vindication From Release of Carter Page Documents” and “How a Trump
Decision Revealed a G.O.P. Memo’s Shaky Foundation.” The latter
headline was in reference to the House Intelligence report. The
accompanying article completely ignored the criminal referral from
Graham and Grassley that buttressed the HPSCI allegations.
USA Today went with “President Trump, allies dismiss revelations in
new court documents tied to Russia probe.” The Washington Post went
on a days-long tantrum. See, for example, “Carter Page FISA warrants
underscore the difficulty of disproving presidential falsehoods,”
“The Carter Page wiretap dispute isn’t a fair fight,” and an error-
riddled, tangent-laden “fact” “check” headlined “Over four days,
false claims dominated Trump’s Twitter feed.”
When Facts Get In The Way Of Narratives
This is part of a pattern for the media when they encounter facts
related to the surveillance of the Trump campaign. When Department
of Justice officials leaked to the media that they had run at least
one informant against the Trump campaign, a breathtaking admission
by any sense of news judgment, the news was buried in the middle of
the story and completely downplayed.
Others joined in with the gaslighting, spending weeks arguing — and
I’m not joking here — that running a secret government informant
against a campaign is not spying on a campaign.
The Times headline was — hand to God — “F.B.I. Used Informant to
Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
CNN contributor and Obama director of national intelligence James
Clapper told the viewing audience that actually “it was a good
thing” that Trump’s campaign was spied on. A Washington Post
We’re debating a ‘spy,’ not an ‘informant.'”
Blaming Republicans For Comprehending Facts
If you go back to last year, CNN’s Jake Tapper mocked and derided
Republican voters who told pollsters they thought the Obama
administration had spied on the Trump campaign. This mockery took
place _after_ CNN reported that … the Obama administration had spied
on Page!
Still, he called it the definition of fake news and compared it to
believing in ghosts.
32 percent of the public thinks President Obama
intentionally spied on Donald Trump and members of his
campaign and 52 percent of Republicans believe this charge.
A charge that there is literally no evidence to support.
It is the definition of fake news.
Now, look, this is America and you can believe whatever
you want to believe. 18 percent of the public says they’ve
seen or been in the presence of a ghost. I mean whatever.
But in a thriving democracy, truth matters and facts matter.
Again, this segment aired weeks after CNN itself reported that the
Obama administration had secured a wiretap to spy on Page.
What We Know of FBI’s Trump Campaign Surveillance
Sometimes it’s good to take a step back from a complicated story and
view it from a distance. Rather than think about whether the wiretap
application against Carter Page supports this party or that party,
let’s just take a moment to reflect on where the story stands.
In January 2017, days before Trump’s inauguration, high-level
intelligence officials leaked to CNN the news that “Intel chiefs
presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.”
The Hillary Clinton campaign had latched onto “Russia” as an
explanation for her loss, encouraging a largely compliant media to
hype up reports of Russian meddling in the election.
This leak enabled the media to discuss the “salacious and
unverified” (in former FBI director James Comey’s words) gossip that
was in a dossier. For the next year and many months into this year,
this leak and other leaks from intelligence officials fed a theory
that President Trump was a traitor who had conspired with Russia to
steal the election from Hillary Clinton.
A few lonely skeptics of the Grand Russia Theory began asking
questions about the dossier, its provenance, its weaponization, and
the larger investigation into the Trump campaign. Fighting against
an incredible media onslaught, they discovered things the media and
their cadre of leakers had not shared with the American public. And
they’re important.
1. Hillary Clinton and the DNC Secretly Paid for the Dossier
When the dossier first appeared on the scene, it was portrayed as a
top-notch intelligence product put together by a top-notch
intelligence official whose work history was credible.
It turned out to have been secretly bought and paid for by Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. They took extreme
care to cover their tracks by funneling the money through a law firm
that hired the Democratic researchers to cook up the dossier. The
research product was then funneled to the media and the federal
government.
Republican investigators found this out over the strenuous
objections and process wrangling of Democratic members such as Rep.
Adam Schiff, who fought tooth and nail to keep the funding of the
dossier hidden. This information was leaked to friendly media only
under pressure from congressional investigators.
This fact of the funding was obscured, just as the HPSCI report
said, by the FBI in a page-long word salad when they applied to a
secret court to wiretap a Trump affiliate. It was obscured so well
that Comey, who signed one of the applications, could get away with
claiming he had no idea that Clinton and the DNC funded the dossier.
Speaking of gaslighting, CBS News ran an Associated Press “fact”
“check” that claimed “It’s not correct to call the Steele dossier a
‘Clinton Campaign document.'”
2. The Dossier Was Used to Secure a Wiretap Against a Trump
Affiliate
When CNN received its leak about the dossier from highly placed
intelligence officials, it reported as if the dossier was a
legitimate piece of research that sober-minded intelligence agencies
took very seriously. The unintentional hero of the story was
BuzzFeed, which ran the actual dossier in all its glory.
Americans learned that the dossier claimed a senior advisor to Trump
and three of his colleagues had met with Kremlin operatives in
Prague in late August or early September to undermine the Clinton
campaign. They also learned the Russians had a file of “kompromat”
on Trump, including an amazing story about him renting a hotel room
that the Obamas had used and paying prostitutes to urinate on the
bed.
People could see for themselves how ridiculous, preposterous, and
immediately debunkable some of the most important claims were. The
revelation of how fever-dreamed and sophomoric the dossier was, at
least in major parts, cast doubt on the wisdom of the top political
brass at intelligence agencies, much less their propriety and
ability to handle information with any discretion. Obviously they
were leaking like sieves in an ongoing war against the president-
elect.
Then Grassley began asking some rather serious questions that
suggested the dossier might have been used to secure a wiretap
against a Trump campaign affiliate. That’s when the defensive leak
to a friendly media outlet occurred, and we learned the dossier had
in fact been used to secure a wiretap against Page.
Trump critics say that since Page wasn’t on the Trump campaign at
the time of the wiretap, it wasn’t really surveillance of the
campaign. There are multiple problems with that. One is that
wiretaps can be used to obtain information into the past, of the
time Page was on the campaign. Another is that the wiretap would
capture communications with any Trump campaign members Page spoke
with. Another is that the FBI itself claimed in its wiretap
application that Page was the conduit between Russia and the
campaign.
The case against Page laid out in the wiretap application began with
an unverified claim pulled straight out of the dossier. When Page
responded to public reporting of the dossier’s claims by denying it,
that was also mentioned in the application. The geniuses at the FBI
wrote that they don’t believe the news reports of the dossier claims
were fed by the dossier author, all evidence to the contrary.
3. Informants Were Run against the Trump Campaign
For most Americans, the idea that the FBI would run <s>secret
government spies</s> human informants against the Republican Party’s
presidential campaign is a huge scandal. It happened, according to
The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign
aides in those early months, congressional investigators
revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn,
Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current
and former officials said…
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national
security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And
at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page
and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.
If the FBI genuinely believed that Russians were trying to illegally
infiltrate the Trump campaign, the proper course of action would be
to give the Trump campaign a defensive briefing warning them of the
efforts. To run <s>spies</s> human informants, wiretaps, national
security letters, and other surveillance against the campaign is
truly breathtaking and invasive.
4. The FBI Also Used Secret Subpoenas Against the Trump Campaign
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents
using national security letters — a secret type of
subpoena — officials said.
You can, along with the partisan and gaslighting media, claim it’s
not a big deal to run human informants or secretly gather
intelligence against a presidential campaign. But you can not deny
it happened.
Hehe...The Federalist...
In other words, you are unable to produce a counter-argument.

Ad hominem noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
make.
FPP
2018-07-31 12:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more
interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with
Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a
presidential campaign.
Not "spied"... requested and received a warrant under US Law, and signed
by a US FISA Judge.
All legal, and above board.

The warrants bore fruit, and were renewed time and time again. That
doesn't happen UNLESS actionable intelligence is continually being gathered.

Carter Page admitted he was working as an advisor to the Kremlin. (His
own words.)
The rest of your Fairy Tale is just wishful thinking.
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
Ubiquitous
2018-07-31 12:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
After a year of alarming revelations, the media are still more
interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with
Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a
presidential campaign.
Not "spied"... requested and received a warrant under US Law, and signed
by a US FISA Judge.
All legal, and above board.
The warrants bore fruit, and were renewed time and time again. That
doesn't happen UNLESS actionable intelligence is continually being gathered.
So you would't mind if President trump does this to the next Democrat
candidate in 2020?

Yeah, right. The lengths to which you go to rationalize things that happen
to people you don't like...
Ubiquitous
2018-08-02 01:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CNN personalities have repeatedly attacked Fox News for allegedly
being a mouthpiece for President Donald Trump, pointing to the
number of Fox anchors and pundits who have joined the administration
over the past year and a half.

CNN has its own extensive history, however, of being a revolving
door for the Obama administration and even masquerading former Obama
officials as impartial journalists.

CNN’s current chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto
served in the Obama administration as the senior adviser to the U.S.
ambassador to China. (RELATED: MSNBC And CNN Employees Dominate
White House Press Briefings)

Despite having an obvious conflict of interest in foreign policy
reporting — particularly on issues relating to China — Sciutto is
often presented on the network as an objective reporter. He has
reported on the Iran Deal, the United States’ deal to save China’s
ZTE, and other international stories without CNN ever indicating
that he served in the Obama administration.

Sciutto’s bias has made its way into his reporting before.

In 2017, Sciutto claimed that the Obama administration cared more
about “civilian casualties” than the Trump administration.

In February of 2018, Sciutto falsely claimed that the Steele dossier
was first funded by Republicans and refused to issue a retraction or
correction after TheDC pointed out his mistake. In May, he made sure
to point out that the “closest US allies” opposed Trump leaving the
Iran Deal. (RELATED: Media Still Pinning Steele Dossier On
Republicans)

John Kirby, who served as a State Department spokesperson and
Pentagon press secretary during the Obama administration, appears on
CNN as a military and diplomatic analyst.

Kirby is always identified by his former titles while appearing on
the network, but CNN often fails to identify his connection to
Obama.

Kirby was never identified as an Obama official during a July 11
appearance as he slammed President Donald Trump for not denouncing
Russia strongly enough and for attacking NATO allies.

While Kirby’s role is to provide political commentary and not
objective reporting, it is odd that he is afforded free rein to
attack the president without viewers ever being informed about his
political associations.

CNN justice reporter Laura Jarrett boasts a familial connection to
the Obama administration — her mother is Valerie Jarrett, former
senior adviser to Obama. Jarrett’s biography indicates she had no
reporting experience prior to joining CNN yet the network tasked her
with covering Trump’s Department of Justice.

According to the Media Research Center, CNN has conducted at least
seven interviews with Valerie Jarrett wherein the host never
disclosed that her daughter works for the network.

CNN’s cozy relationship with the Obama White House has worked in the
opposite direction as well. In 2009, Sasha Johnson, a senior
political producer for the network, left to join the administration
as a press secretary for the Department of Transportation. During
her time at CNN, Johnson covered the 2008 Obama campaign
extensively.

“After 10 1/2 years at CNN, which included three presidential
campaigns, I am ready for a new challenge and ready to fulfill
another career goal – the opportunity to work in public policy,”
Johnson said in an email to colleagues at the time of her departure.

Similarly, former CNN war correspondent Aneesh Raman quit his job
and became an intern for the Obama campaign in 2008, eventually
serving as Obama’s domestic policy speechwriter.

“To bear witness, up close to that kind of historic campaign and to
be a part of it, even in a small way, was something singular,” Raman
said in an interview with AsAmNews.

In addition to serving as “objective” reporters and analysts, other
Obama officials joined CNN to provide partisan political commentary.
Former senior adviser for strategy and communications Dan Pfeiffer,
former press secretary Jay Carney, former national security adviser
Samantha Vinograd, and former deputy national security adviser Tony
Blinken have all served as CNN contributors or analysts at one time
or another.

CNN also recently hired former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper after he was suspected of leaking classified
information to its journalists.

According to a House Intelligence report released in April, Clapper
acknowledged speaking with CNN reporter Jake Tapper about the
infamous Steele dossier while he was serving as DNI. This
contradicted earlier claims about whether or not he had spoken to
media about the topic, and Clapper still later denied the House
Intel report.

Clapper was present at a meeting with President Donald Trump wherein
then-FBI director James Comey briefed the soon-to-be president about
the existence of the dossier. The fact that Trump was briefed on the
dossier was later leaked to CNN. (RELATED: James Clapper Provided
‘Inconsistent Testimony’ About Media Contacts, Report Claims)

Clapper’s quick pick-up by CNN gave the appearance that he was being
rewarded for allegedly handing CNN a scoop on a hot news item.

Former FBI agent Josh Campbell similarly raised eyebrows when he
joined CNN after very publicly leaving the FBI and blaming his
resignation on President Donald Trump. Campbell served at the FBI
from 2008 to 2018.

Campbell’s closeness with former director Comey and his relative
inexperience in the field raised questions as to whether CNN hired
him to provide real expertise or to give the network more ammo
against President Trump. Those questions were not assuaged by
Campbell’s FBI goodbye flyer, which said his role at CNN was to
“defend the bureau.” (RELATED: Why Did CNN Hire Comey’s Former
Assistant Josh Campbell?)

CNN only describes Campbell as a “law enforcement analyst.”

In case the heavy mix of reporters and commentators affiliated with
Obama weren’t enough, CNN also hosts former Obama senior adviser
David Axelrod’s podcast, “The Axe Files.”

CNN employs a few former Trump aides, such as Jason Miller, a Trump
transition team member, and Marc Short, the former director of
legislative affairs. They also have their fair share of “Never
Trumpers” in Ana Navarro, a Republican who voted for Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 election, and Amanda Carpenter, a former aide to Sen.
Ted Cruz.

CNN does not currently have an updated, full list of contributors to
the network, but it seems no administration past or present has as
much representation at CNN — who claims to be an impartial, unbiased
network — than the Obama White House.

CNN did not respond to a request for comment.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-03 01:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“It’s always with an African-American when he questions intelligence,”
said Chuck Todd on Meet the Press today. “That’s what makes a lot of
people uncomfortable with what he’s doing.”

Todd was talking to Republican Roy Blunt about how racist republicans
are all the time, and his evidence was that Trump said CNN’s Don Lemon
and NBA star Lebron James are dumb, as well as referring to Rep. Maxine
Waters as “low I.Q.” Todd said that “it’s always with an African-
American” when Trump questions intellect.

To repeat again, Todd says that “it’s always with an African-American.”

Unfortunately for Chuck, the New York Times preemptively and
inadvertently fact-checked him on this some time ago. Verdict: FALSE.

You see, as Newsbusters pointed out today, the Times has created a huge
list of insults Trump has tweeted. It was published in January of 2016
and has been constantly updated since then.

It’s weirdly comprehensive, and in the list of hundreds of insults, he
calls into question the intelligence of a lot of people. Men, women,
white, black… Trump bashes them all.

He called Hillary Clinton “very stupid”, “very dumb”, “totally
confused”, and questioned her “brainpower” and “judgment’ over and
over, for example.

About James Comey, he said “he is not smart”, called him “stupid”, and
“very dumb”. Jeb Bush is “stupid”, “clueless”, and “not competent”
according to Trump. Of Bloomberg’s Tim O’Brien, a “dumb guy with no
clue”, a “really stupid talking head” and “dopey.” White men all, by
the way.

Here are some more from Newsbusters:

The President had called Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski
“dumb as a rock” and “crazy and very dumb”. He had also
labeled Katy Tur, who fills in for Todd on Mondays’ MTP Daily,
as “incompetent”. And his attacks on the intelligence of
individual journalists and news outlets were numerous.

The president had even leveled insults of intelligence against
a series of white U.S. Senators. He suggested Tennessee
Republican Bob Corker was “incompetent” and “doesn’t have a
clue”. “Dumb mouthpiece”, was what he had to say about South
Carolina Republican Linsey Graham. He also slammed Governor
Mitt Romney, who’s now running to be a Senator from Utah, “one
of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of
Republican politics”.

He also called Brzezinski “low I.Q.” for the record.

NBC’s Chuck Todd is echoing something that you see people say on
Twitter and MSNBC (same thing) every single day. They say that the only
time Trump brings up how smart someone is, it’s when he’s talking about
someone who is black. But that is just not the case.

You might say that’s “Fake news”.

#WhatLiberalMedia
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-08-05 22:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It’s weirdly comprehensive, and in the list of hundreds of insults, he
calls into question the intelligence of a lot of people. Men, women,
white, black… Trump bashes them all
To quote you: "Verdict: FALSE."

When did he ever bash Putin?
Please...elaborate.
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
Ubiquitous
2018-08-05 22:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
President Trump held a raucous rally in Tampa, Florida, Tuesday
night.

Thousands of supporters packed the arena to hear Trump hammer his
critics and tout his administration’s accomplishments. There was
plenty of hecklers, comedy and chants about Hillary and 2020. Trump
stopped to pick on one of his favorite targets, the media,
approximately half-way through the speech. The president heckled the
press in the press pen as “fake news” and the audience roared,
chanting “Fake News” and “CNN Sucks” at the reporters.

One of the favorite targets of the audience was CNN’s Jim Acosta,
who tweeted multiple videos of the crowd mocking him before and
after the rally.

Acosta blamed Trump for the vitriol, saying “I’m very worried that
the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media
will result in somebody getting hurt.” The tweet showed Trump
supporters jeering at Acosta after the rally.

Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally
in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up
by Trump and some in conservative media will result in
somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow
Americans this way. The press is not the enemy.
pic.twitter.com/IhSRw5Ui3R
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 1, 2018

The tweet quickly went viral with many celebrities and journalists
insulting the supporters. Celebrated composer Christopher O’Riley,
who is a regular on PBS and NPR, literally called for the enforced
slaughter of Trump supporters. “Calling them Deplorables is
euphemizing them. Maybe better to euthanize?” the verified twitter
user quipped.

Other verified handles of celebrities and reporters were just as
vulgar, likening the Trump supporters to Nazis, KKK members, white
trash and Hitler while speculating the crowd will eventually commit
murder. Others said the Trump supporters made them “ashamed” of
America.

Pathetic, Ignorant, Shameful ….Trump + White Trash making
America fucking lame https://t.co/wEIqMXh7ne
— Bassnectar (@bassnectar) August 1, 2018


This is sad and yes Jim @acosta also dangerous. I fear for
the safety of journalists and for the American people who
are being manipulated by #Trump. He will one day be long
gone but he will leave a society divided and full of hatred
and poisoned hearts. https://t.co/Bpp1LI9dlQ
— Maria Elena Salinas (@MariaESalinas) August 1, 2018


This scene looks like a modern day Ku Klux Klan rally.
Amazing to see that @realDonaldTrump – the man occupying
the #WhiteHouse – is so comfortable in this atmosphere of
hateful hostility, bigotry & deplorable language.
#GodBlessAmerica https://t.co/4HQUtMuko2
— Jawn Murray (@JawnMurray) August 1, 2018


As an American citizen, this video depresses and angers me.
As a working journalist, it terrifies me. @Acosta: Keep
doing your job. Millions of us out here still appreciate
your hard work and your quest for the truth. #HumanityFirst
https://t.co/O8j2CV3edt
— Matt Villano (@mattvillano) August 1, 2018


I’m truly ashamed that this is what America has become.

Replace the MAGA hats and Trump signs, and this is straight
out of any number of authoritarian regimes where journalists
are killed.

I feel like a foreign correspondent in my own country.
https://t.co/DyEaefnb7S
— Will Potter (@will_potter) August 1, 2018


I’ve seen classier crowds at cagefighting events.
https://t.co/LtRXP2DVwx
— JE Snowden (@JESnowden) August 1, 2018


Trump’s endless vilification of the media will almost
certainly lead to vigilante violence against journalists.

If Trump succeeds in weakening American institutions
sufficiently, he could wage an Erdogan-style crackdown on
his media critics and independent journalists.
https://t.co/MZykJccKwP
— Khaled Diab (@DiabolicalIdea) August 1, 2018

Acosta wasn't done - the fragile snowflake appeared visibly upset
when he appeared on Brooke Baldwin's CNN show, following Thursday’s
press briefing after Sarah Sanders refused to agree with him that
the press is not the “enemy of the American people.”



Acosta whined to Brooke Baldwin... “And, you know, I think maybe we
should make some bumper stickers. Make some buttons, you know —
maybe we should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue like these folks who
chant CNN sucks and fake news, maybe we should go out, all
journalists should go out on Pennsylvania Avenue and chant we’re not
the enemy of the people because I’m tired of this. Honestly, Brooke,
I’m tired of this. It is not right. It is not fair."
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means cite GL if you think some Nazi comparison is baseless,
needlessly inflammatory or hyperbolic."
4:05 AM - June 24, 2018
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-godwins-law-
20180624-story.html
FPP
2018-08-06 22:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
President Trump held a raucous rally in Tampa, Florida, Tuesday
night.
Just like Hitler used to...
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
Hass
2018-08-07 14:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
President Trump held a raucous rally in Tampa, Florida, Tuesday
night.
Just like Hitler used to...
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
Haha...Uni/Nobody has resorted to "Zerohedge" as his new source for angry alt-right fake news...so sad, yet funny at the same time.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-11 04:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, New York Times feature writer Elizabeth Williamson has
been forced to apologize for having tweeted out disapproving feelings
regarding new Times editorial board hire Sarah Jeong. Jeong became the
subject of national controversy last week after dozens of anti-white
tweets resurfaced, and the Times defended her despite her non-apology.

Williamson originally tweeted out a column from the Times’ Bret
Stephens, with the comment, “Here’s @BretStephensNYT offering a classy
welcome to a colleague who has yet to prove she dserves one.” Jeong’s
tweets, it should be noted, weren’t merely anti-white — she had
routinely ripped into the Times over the years.

Nonetheless, it was Williamson who had to say sorry after tweeting, not
Jeong. She tweeted:

Elizabeth Williamson @NYTLiz
I just deleted my earlier tweet about this column. It was
inappropriate. I apologize. https://nyti.ms/2KBlzCo

It’s unclear whether the Times pressured Williamson to apologize, or
whether she caved to the baying of the Twitter outrage mob. In any
case, the irony of an apology from someone criticizing Jeong but not
Jeong herself is telling evidence of the perverse mentality of the
Times itself.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-08-11 09:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
On Thursday, New York Times feature writer Elizabeth Williamson has
been forced to apologize..."
Do say?
Post by Ubiquitous
It’s unclear whether the Times pressured Williamson to apologize...
Well, which one is it, moron? Was she forced, or it it unclear?
Any idea?
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
Ubiquitous
2018-08-12 20:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.

The Associated Press reports that the Globe is calling for media outlets
to publish editorials denouncing what it called a “dirty war against the
free press.” Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s
editorial page, told the AP: “We are not the enemy of the people,” as
Trump has called the media.

Pritchard told the AP that 70 news outlets, including the Denver Post,
Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, and Minneapolis Star Tribune have all
agreed to publish editorials critical of Trump’s treatment of the media
on August 16.

“The newspaper's request was being promoted by industry groups such as
the American Society of News Editors and regional groups like the New
England Newspaper and Press Association,” the AP reported. “It suggested
editorial boards take a common stand against Trump's words regardless of
their politics, or whether they generally editorialized in support of or
in opposition to the president's policies.”

Pritchard told the AP the paper made the decision to reach out after
Trump recently escalated his rhetoric against the press. At a political
rally in Pennsylvania earlier this month, Trump asked his audience:
“What ever happened to the free press? What ever happened to honest
reporting?” and claimed the media “make up stories.”

Pritchard called this “an attack on the First Amendment” and said she
hoped the editorials would “educate readers” that such comments were
“unacceptable.”
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-08-12 21:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Leaders who have used the phrase "Enemy of the People":

Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Donald Trump (MAGA).
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
trotsky
2018-08-13 00:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Donald Trump (MAGA).
What, Pol Pot didn't make the list?
FPP
2018-08-13 01:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Donald Trump (MAGA).
What, Pol Pot didn't make the list?
"Chinese and Cambodian communists, all fiercely nationalistic, rarely if
ever used “enemy of the people” in domestic political struggles because
it was an alien import. Instead, Pol Pot attacked enemies as “ugly
microbes” who would “rot society, rot the party and rot the country from
within."

Mao, however DID use the phrase:

"In Mao Zedong's 1957 speech On the Correct Handling of Contradictions
Among the People, he comments that "At the present stage, the period of
building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour,
support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within
the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which
resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist
construction are all enemies of the people."
--
Trump Supporters Motto: "He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't
mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's
not a big deal. And if it is, others have done worse."
trotsky
2018-08-13 09:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Donald Trump (MAGA).
What, Pol Pot didn't make the list?
"Chinese and Cambodian communists, all fiercely nationalistic, rarely if
ever used “enemy of the people” in domestic political struggles because
it was an alien import. Instead, Pol Pot attacked enemies as “ugly
microbes” who would “rot society, rot the party and rot the country from
within."
Trump probably doesn't know who he is, and thus hasn't quoted him.
Post by FPP
"In Mao Zedong's 1957 speech On the Correct Handling of Contradictions
Among the People, he comments that "At the present stage, the period of
building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour,
support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within
the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which
resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist
construction are all enemies of the people."
That sounds like Trump's playbook.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-21 23:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin'a Law violation noted.

Get back to us when you have you a real argument to make.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means cite GL if you think some Nazi comparison is baseless,
needlessly inflammatory or hyperbolic."
4:05 AM - June 24, 2018
FPP
2018-08-22 23:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin'a Law violation noted.
Get back to us when you have you a real argument to make.
Any part of that response that wasn't cut and pasted at random?
--
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was
their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1949

"Just remember: what you’re seeing, and what you're reading is not
what’s happening." - Donald J. Trump, 2018
trotsky
2018-08-23 08:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
The Boston Globe is reaching out to editorial boards across the country
in an attempt to publish coordinated attacks on President Donald Trump’s
criticism of media outlets unfavorable to him.
Stalin (USSR).
Robespierre (Reign of Terror).
Mao (Cultural Revolution).
Hitler (3rd Reich).
Ad hominem noted.
Goodwin'a Law violation noted.
Get back to us when you have you a real argument to make.
Any part of that response that wasn't cut and pasted at random?
Looks like Pubie has gone back to citing "Goodwin" (sic) and using "ad
hominem" as a noun.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-25 01:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Liberal cable news outlets evidently had their own fairy tale ending
in mind when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
campaign finance violations: impeachment. On Wednesday, CNN and
MSNBC reporters, anchors, and paid contributors used the word an
absurd 222 times in 18 hours.

MRC analysts examined all CNN and MSNBC coverage between 6:00 a.m.
and 11:59 p.m. on August 22, counting every use of the word
“impeach,” “impeachment,” or some permutation thereof. Analysts
found 114 instances of the term on MSNBC and 108 on CNN, for a total
of 222 total uses of the word.

There were no shows on either network in which the term was not
uttered at least once. CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon and MSNBC’s
Andrea Mitchell and Rachel Maddow exercised the most restraint, with
each host using the term only once in their allotted hour.

A number of hosts brought in Congressional Democrats to lobby them
in the direction of impeaching President Trump. On CNN’s New Day,
host John Berman pushed liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren: “Is that
grounds for impeachment?”

Later, Wolf Blitzer suggested to Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes
on The Situation Room: “Do you think it would be appropriate to
immediately begin impeachment proceedings based on what you’ve just
learned, for example, from Michael Cohen?”

On MSNBC’s 6 p.m. ET The Beat, fill-in host Ayman Mohyeldin nudged
New York Representative Hakim Jeffries: “In the spring, you said
that Democrats have ‘no interest in going down the road to
impeachment.’ Is that still case? Should Democrats and members of
Congress consider impeachment against this President?”

So prominent was the topic of impeachment that Ali Velshi began his
hour of MSNBC Live with an in-depth presentation on the process –
which he embarrassingly bungled.

What follows is a video compilation which captures the enthusiasm
with which the cable outlets discussed impeachment yesterday:
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cnn-msnbc-say-impeachment-222-times-one-day
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-08-27 22:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Liberal cable news outlets evidently had their own fairy tale ending
in mind when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
campaign finance violations: impeachment. On Wednesday, CNN and
MSNBC reporters, anchors, and paid contributors used the word an
absurd 222 times in 18 hours.
More Republicans are talking impeachment than Democrats.
But, by all means, ignore the facts if they don't suit your narrative.
--
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was
their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1949

"Just remember: what you’re seeing, and what you're reading is not
what’s happening." - Donald J. Trump, 2018
A Friend
2018-08-27 23:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Liberal cable news outlets evidently had their own fairy tale ending
in mind when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
campaign finance violations: impeachment. On Wednesday, CNN and
MSNBC reporters, anchors, and paid contributors used the word an
absurd 222 times in 18 hours.
More Republicans are talking impeachment than Democrats.
But, by all means, ignore the facts if they don't suit your narrative.
It seems absurd to me to have somebody sitting there counting the
number of times people use the word "impeachment." Was this the Brent
Bozell group?
NoBody
2018-08-28 11:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Liberal cable news outlets evidently had their own fairy tale ending
in mind when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
campaign finance violations: impeachment. On Wednesday, CNN and
MSNBC reporters, anchors, and paid contributors used the word an
absurd 222 times in 18 hours.
More Republicans are talking impeachment than Democrats.
But, by all means, ignore the facts if they don't suit your narrative.
You going to back that claim up? Somehow I doubt it.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-28 11:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Liberal cable news outlets evidently had their own fairy tale ending
in mind when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
campaign finance violations: impeachment. On Wednesday, CNN and
MSNBC reporters, anchors, and paid contributors used the word an
absurd 222 times in 18 hours.
More Republicans are talking impeachment than Democrats.
But, by all means, ignore the facts if they don't suit your narrative.
You going to back that claim up? Somehow I doubt it.
FPPsky backing up a claim of his with FACTS?
Yeah, you're right.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2018-08-21 08:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, former mayor of New York City and President Trump’s attorney
Rudy Giuliani appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

During an exchange about the Mueller investigation, Giuliani used the
phrase "truth isn’t truth." Now, if one simply reads the headlines,
tweets, and sometimes, even full stories from outlets like New York
Magazine, one could be forgiven for thinking this is an outrageous
statement.

Here’s the thing — context is crucial. Below is the full exchange
between Giuliani and host Chuck Todd:

TODD: You believe that this is on them, that you guys have
not delayed the interviewing, delayed the negotiations with Mr.
Mueller?

GIULIANI: Yes, yes, each time by three or four days so we
could write a letter in response. They have taken two to
three weeks to get back to us. What I have to tell you is,
look, I am not going to be rushed into having him testify so
that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that,
you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the
truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because
it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth. He didn’t
have a conversation about –

TODD: Truth is truth. I don’t mean to go like –

GIULIANI: No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth. The President
of the United States says, "I didn’t" –

TODD: Truth isn’t truth? Mr. Mayor, do you realize, what, I, –

GIULIANI: No, no –

TODD: This is going to become a bad meme.

GIULIANI: Don't do this to me [imitates Todd's physical
behavior].

TODD: Don't do "truth isn't truth" to me.

GIULIANI: Donald Trump says, "I didn't talk about Flynn with
Comey." Comey says, "You did talk about it." So tell me what
the truth is if you're such a genius.

TODD: Don McGhan

GIULIANI: Don McGhan doesn't know. If that's the situation,
if two pieces of evidence – Trump says, "I didn't tell him,"
and the other guy says that he did say it, which is the truth?
Maybe you know because you're a genius.

TODD: Well, at that point, you're right. No, you're right. I
don't read minds on that front. Let me ask you this final
question.

GIULIANI: No, no, no, let me finish. We have a credibility
gap between the two of them. You gotta select one or the
other. Who do you think Mueller's gonna select? One of his
best friends, Comey, or the president, who he has been
carrying on a completely wild, crazy, unorthodox investigation
[on].

TODD: Is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who's
been more truthful over the years?

GIULIANI: It's possible that he'll make the conclusion on
which of the two statements is more logical; which of the two
statements has more common sense. Yeah, it's possible he can
do that.



Once given context, the meaning of Giuliani's "truth isn’t truth"
remark becomes clear. There are times during the course of an
investigation in which two conflicting statements may be given, and
investigators must decide who they believe.

Unsurprisingly, the headlines from mainstream media outlets don’t
reflect this:

• New York Magazine: Giuliani Goes Full Orwell: 'Truth Is Not Truth'

• Politico: Giuliani: 'Truth isn’t truth'

• The Guardian: 'Truth isn't truth': Giuliani trumps 'alternative
facts' with new Orwellian outburst

• Huffington Post: Rudy Giuliani Stuns NBC’s Chuck Todd: 'Truth Isn’t
Truth'

New York Magazine doesn’t even bother explaining the context of the
exchange in their story; Politico buries the revelation 333 words into
the piece; The Guardian, which also takes 333 words to get to the
context of the exchange also leaves out a crucial piece, that Todd
actually agreed with Giuliani on his point.

The NBC News PR Twitter account tweeted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNewsPR/status/1031177136441356289/photo/1

Politicians and pundits are attempting to get a punch in as well:

Ted Lieu
The statement by Rudy Giuliani that "truth isn't truth" is
another step towards authoritarianism. It also reminds us
of Nixon's defense that "when the president does it, that
means it is not illegal."

Does this make you angry? Scared? If so, vote this Nov & get
others to vote.


Adam Schiff
From Spicer & Conway’s alternative facts to Sanders’ daily
dissembling, we can now add Giuliani’s “truth isn’t truth” to
the hall of shame. Nothing is more corrosive to democracy than
the idea that there is no truth. And no one has told more
falsehoods than the President himself.

This situation is a microcosm of the way in which the mainstream press
covers anything related to Donald Trump, which is why supporters of the
president don’t trust them. The press has buried context in favor of a
sensational verbal faux pas. Perhaps worse, thousands of readers and
social media users who may not look beyond the headline or first
paragraph of a story will never know what really occurred.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2018-06-22 22:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
National Enquirer sent stories about Trump to his attorney Michael Cohen
before publication.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-enquirer-sent-stories-about-trump-to-his-attorney-michael-cohen-before-publication-people-familiar-with-the-practice-say/2018/06/21/3978aff4-57a4-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d63f53b1faca

During the presidential campaign, National Enquirer executives sent
digital copies of the tabloid’s articles and cover images related to
Donald Trump and his political opponents to Trump’s attorney Michael
Cohen in advance of publication, according to three people with
knowledge of the matter — an unusual practice that speaks to the close
relationship between Trump and David Pecker, chief executive of American
Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company.

Federal prosecutors subpoenaed American Media Inc. as part of their
investigation into Cohen, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this
week. A Justice Department official said Pecker did not fall under the
regulation that governs when and how prosecutors can obtain records of
members of the news media.

Yeah, I know... #FakeNews. I've saved you the trouble.
--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017
Loading...