Isnt is pretty basic pre-debate posturing? It’s just setting up the post-debate spin.
2 Likes
Wrong!! I guess you haven’t been listening or watching Chris Wallace for a longer time. Biden will be handled with kid gloves. Just watch.
By the way Fox has a few commentators that tend to be on the left side. Judge Nepolitano (sp) often is called out by our President for his replies. Of course Trump doesn’t hold back on his beliefs.
1 Like
There will be a lot of Repugnicants riding his coattails, but just as in the last election, they won’t give him the credit, at least not with legislative support.
That was the case for his first 72 posts of “news”. I quit looking after that. Yes, I’m a slow learner, but even I can pick up on a trend … like the one that they’re finally publishing about Trump gaining inroads into minority communities.
I’m not sure how you ended up on a non-hate, possbily fact-based website, but congratulations. Didn’t it feel good to read an uplifting story? Be careful, though. Reading too many will lead you to conservatism and flag waving and shouting “Make America Great Again”. 
One thing I would like to add, again, assuming any of what you wrote is true. Herr Massaquoi immigrated to the U.S. legally and was welcomed here with open arms and many opportunities. How can that be? Didn’t you say he was a minority? Weren’t we a racist country then, or is that a recent development?
It would be very interesting to hear his views on how racist America is and how Americans mini/micro/maxi aggress all minorities.
"The judge agreed with Fox’s premise, adding that the network “persuasively argues … that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes.”
Because I think it has gotten worse.
Please do.
I took some liberties and exaggerated, and you understood that (you asked “Surely you jest?” to which I said “Surely”). Why do you keep bringing it up?
I wasn’t talking about Biden, and once again I’m not following you. And it’s not about the horizontal lines you started adding to your posts, it’s about lack of a coherent train of thought – you appear to be taking some quotes either out of context or responding with something tangential or unrelated, or perhaps making some outdated cultural reference while expecting everyone else to follow.
And speaking of schools I did pretty well. And even though I may be a bit younger than you (just guessing), it was quite some time ago.
The emphasized part above is why this thread is toxic. You’ve just contributed to the toxicity.
The only reason most Democrats were depressed on Nov 9, 2016 is because of positive thinking. And it wasn’t very productive. I guarantee you Trump considers losing, which is why he’s undermining our institutions and our trust in the election.
From the standpoint of reassuring the public faith in our public institutions, no, I do not see a difference.
I don’t know, the House of Representatives? But this was after the election. Way after. It’s not a counter-point to what I said.
You keep saying that like it’s true.
I said “the question” not “a question”. It’s not a generic rule.
I don’t see why not. I assumed that non-personal contents belong to the people and cannot be removed, so someone must be doing inventory periodically. No?
1 Like
LOL. Stupid judge 
Neat trick, btw.
Here’s another trick (created with three or more dashes or underscores):
Feel free to use instead of ========
“No justice, no books!” -a KY state representative probably, channeling Heinrich Heine. “Breonna would have wanted us to be illiterate”.
Kentucky Representative Attica Scott (D) was arrested with a group of people accused of starting a fire at the Louisville Public Library… Scott is charged with rioting, failure to disperse, and unlawful assembly. The same group is also accused of causing extensive damage at multiple locations.
1 Like
Finally, a change that respects the concept of “election day”! I’m rather sick of how election day has become “autumn”.
You do realize that there are countless proposals like this, made by all congressmen rather routinely? They’re designed to highlight a point - in this case, I’d guess it’s to stress that there should be a result soon after election day, and the mere counting of votes shouldnt drag on for weeks after. And perhaps to highlight the complete lack of consistency in rules/policies from state to state.
He knows as well as everyone else that this proposal wouldnt even merit a formal vote, let alone have a chance in Hades of passing.
2 Likes
Judge was obviously right. Problem is the implicit assumption that there’s any “reasonable” viewers
I do not fully understand what will be happening later today, at 9:00 pm ET, at the Newport News airport. Trump is holding a MAGA rally there. Huh!!??
I have studied the map. That airport is north of the James River and can only be reached from the south after driving through the Norfolk/Portsmouth metro region, crossing the river, and then continuing north.
Point is Trump’s team, insofar as I’m able to discern, appears to be holding tonight’s rally primarily for Virginians. What the hen is that all about??!!
Fact: Trump was unable to defeat Hillary in Virginia in 2016.
My take, prior to this, was that he would do even worse in Virginia now. Is Trump’s internal polling giving him a chance in Virginia? This is one of two possibilities I’m able to conjure. And the other I’ve already addressed. To wit:
The Newport News airport is too distant, in my opinion, from northeastern North Carolina, and too difficult to reach, for Trump’s team to be aiming tonight’s event at North Carolinians, North Carolina being a certifiable battleground state. Oh, sure, a few will make the trip. But the primary target of this evening’s event has to be Virginia voters.
Trump haters, and those infected with TDS, will disagree. But fact is Trump is not stupid enough to campaign where he has no chance of victory. I am encouraged by the location of this rally.
1 Like
I feel somewhat bad for Carlson though. When he’s bashed by other networks or people that disagree with him, it’s pretty much expected and part of the job.
But I’m not sure how I’d feel if my own network successfully argued in court (and convinced the judge) that my segment is obviously only a comedy piece with no pretense to be factual and that therefore reasonable viewers, well aware of this, are not taking him seriously. Kinda like saying, hey dude everybody knows you’re a tabloid show, nothing to see here. Even if true, you guys could have put it a bit more nicely.
How you described how they put it is already incredibly nice.
Unless “tabloid show” already connotes undertones with toxic anti-semitism, racism, and completely fabricated information with no basis in reality…
Have we already forgotten?
But it is true we’re in a time where the endless scandals have now blended into a new “normal” that sets the bar incredibly high for anything to make the “news” now (or warrant staying at the top of the pile of things remembered).
Hmm… It seems that the only thing that has changed is more corrections of the anti-Trump posts, so I can see your point.
I appreciate the uncommon courtesy, but please do what? Are you saying that you were not playing dumb? I’m not going to put forth the time and effort if you were.
There you go again, accusing/stating/putting words in someone’s mouth instead of asking. I asked. Not only did I not know, I put the odds at less than fifty-fifty considering the logic of some of your more recent posts. You even stated that I a͟s͟k͟e͟d͟ “surely you jest”. FYI (not a reference to anything related to the nazi’s or argyll, bender, communists, socialists, progressives), asking means that I didn’t know. There is reference book somewhere that will explain that.
[quote=“scripta, post:3334, topic:3532”]
I wasn’t talking about Biden,
[/quote] (edit) etc.,etc.
Amazingly, that is correct. You weren’t talking about Comrade Joseph (no, I’m not a blackmailer) Biden. You were talking about accepting a handicap/disability as an excuse for something. My response, in the form of a question, as indicated by the question mark at the end of the question, was asking if we accepted Crazy Joe’s handicap/disability, could we no longer criticize him? I realize that some of this can be quite tricky to follow, so understand and allow for your misunderstanding.
You didn’t quote it, but was I speaking of schools? Regardless the next sentence sounds like ageism to me. Watch out for the Justice department, as soon as they get finished with Bender’s “small” conspiracy. 
On the bright side, it’s good that you say you did well in school. A good self-image is important. Just ask the handsey former U.S. Senator from Minnesota. Yeah, that’s probably too obscure for you, but I’ll give you a hint if interested. SNL and a mirror. 
No, the toxicity is created by a feeling of helplessness which leads to posting obviously fake news, and even making up stuff in support of said fake news. In fact, I’ve contributed to the humor by countering the humorous “news” links posted by the duo of Bender and Argyll. And your accusation falls in line with exactly the things, of which, you accused me. (sorry for awkward structure; trying to avoid prep on end) Isn’t this moving the ball forward quite rapidly? 
Huh? Yikes!!! If I understand what you’re saying, that is a huge problem. Positive thinking doesn’t end with a stumble, a fall, or an outright failure. If you’re not that young, here is something you’ve got to learn immediately. All twitterish nonsense aside - Failure, at least for me and most successful people that I know, teaches you much more than success teaches. As odd as it seems, failure is something to appreciate, because not only are you (hopefully) learning something, but even if you don’t see that lesson, you’ve ruled out one more unknown for reaching a goal. Back to the twitterish nonsense mode …
I guarantee your guarantee is wrong. Making progress with that route, aren’t we? I also guarantee that I understand Trump better than you, primarily because I’ve tried to understand him. I am pretty sure you have hot. As well I’ve asked questions instead of hurling accusations. That is because, as surprising as it may seem to you, I don’t know everything.
Okey dokey. Point noted
That was a disingenuous edit, or maybe you didn’t understand it. My response was to your accusation that President Trump seeded doubt in the 2016 and 2020 elections. My response was both cogent and on-point (if I must say so). Also, since you seem to be ignorant of the answer, it was uh, lemme guess - a teetotaler? 'er I’ve got it, the smartest candidate for president that we’ve ever had (according to the Messiah, and carpeted El Camino man). If that was too complex or confusing, it was Hillary Clinton who has complained, whined, cried and foot-stomped that she won the election. She’s done this repeatedly for the past four years, and is now saying that Trump can’t win without cheating. Doesn’t that sound like sewing seeds of doubt about the 2016 and 2020 elections? This is the best explanation I’ve got. I can’t draw worth a hoot.
Because it is, despite your obvious doubt or previously admitted confusion (yeah, low blow, but I now consider us almost even from the #$%# nazi accusation.
Oh, so it only applies to Trump. So why haven’t you answered my questions?
And here is where I have to appreciate the failure, although it isn’t easy. I am confident that your answer is untruthful. I believe that, if President Obama had been asked that question, you, along with me and most others would be crying foul, would be up in arms, and looking for our pitchforks (it was a thing used by many people not of the ruling class, 140+ years ago). That’s another lesson that everyone learns sooner or later - you will never be the smartest man in every room every day. If you try to achieve that, it will be to your detriment. This, btw, was in my opinion, Jimmy Carter’s biggest fault, but I digress.
1 Like
That’s not what happened. The Network merely argued that his segments are opinion, and often use hyperbole to illustrate points.
The rest is the judge’s own (rather inappropriate) commentary, likely due to being dismayed that Fox’s argument left him little choice but to rule in their favor.
1 Like
Worst case, Nov 9 made it clear that the next 4 years was going to suck for you. But instead of embracing the suck and waiting it out, you’ve spent 4 years dwelling on it and compounding it into many multiples of suck than it had to be. Or at least actively and intentionally created the illusion of it being many multiples worse. Which is the polite way of explaining why all your angst these past 4 years is nobody’s fault but your own.
Trump isn’t undermining anything; Trump’s potential of winning is undermining your opinion of those institutions and your trust in the election. Not getting your way clearly means someone inappropriately interfered.
2 Likes
Exactly everybody’s read on it. Fox argued that his segment is only an opinion show and not factual in any way, thus only there for entertainment purposes and viewers understand the difference between it and actual journalism. If you’re not supposed to take it seriously, that’s basically a sugar-coated way to say it’s tabloid trash for the masses. You can spin it any other way and beat around the bush but that’s the gist of it. And I agree that I think the judge could have phrased it more politically-correctly too.
1 Like