• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News' latest hire: Donna Brazile (1 Viewer)

So rather than challenge the story, you attack the source as "leftist." That's not much of a challenge to the evidence. In fact, it's no challenge at all. Got something or are you just going to hide behind "leftist"?

What is there to challenge, point to one Fact that you lifties eat up as fact because she said so. Try dealing in facts.
 
And here's the evidence from the New Yorker you refused to address.

Please point to factual evidence. Don't give me hearsay. Read your statement, "here's the evidence" where is the evidence? There is none.
 
That is hilarious that the thing Fox railed about her they did themselves. They are so damn dishonest.
Yup.
From your link

“A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question,” Jane Mayer writes

Jane Mayer's is a leftist reporter for The New Yorker, says it all. There is no factual evidence that she points too. More mumbo jumbo that you lifties eat up.
:lamo:lamo

Three sources have all said the same thing to the reporter. You can choose to believe it or not, but reviewing some of your other posts, you complaining about having hard evidence is quite humorous. Also, the rampant partisanship evident in your posts does not escape my notice either. Are you capable of creating a post that doesn't include "lefties" or "liberals" or some variation thereof?
 
From your link

“A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question,” Jane Mayer writes

Jane Mayer's is a leftist reporter for The New Yorker, says it all. There is no factual evidence that she points too. More mumbo jumbo that you lifties eat up.
Hitler had a term for people who blindly believe what they are told with 0 supporting facts. They were called useful idiots.
 
Hitler had a term for people who blindly believe what they are told with 0 supporting facts. They were called useful idiots.

today they are referred to as deplorables, sometimes known as tRumpvangelicals
 
Yup.
:lamo:lamo

Three sources have all said the same thing to the reporter. You can choose to believe it or not, but reviewing some of your other posts, you complaining about having hard evidence is quite humorous. Also, the rampant partisanship evident in your posts does not escape my notice either. Are you capable of creating a post that doesn't include "lefties" or "liberals" or some variation thereof?

I'm just pointing out that you lefties eat up as fact where there is no fact of evidence. You say there are three sources who are those sources. There were three woman sources that claimed Kav was a gang rapist leader, and all the other sexual assault stuff they claimed Kav did. You ate it up as fact, without one shred of corroborated evidence to prove anything. But that don't matter they said it, it has to be true and factual. Guess what Kav is now a SCJ. And now you want me to believe what a liberal leftist writer who works for The New Yorker is true and factual because
Jane Mayer's said so. Try working with facts
 
today they are referred to as deplorables, sometimes known as tRumpvangelicals

Maybe in your head, but to prove it...lets have you tell us where the factual Trump Russia collusion evidence is. A useful idiot will dodge.
 
Maybe in your head, but to prove it...lets have you tell us where the factual Trump Russia collusion evidence is. A useful idiot will dodge.

there is no need for you to dodge; Mueller will soon tell us to what degree, if any, collusion was found

hold onto something close by that you can hold in your hand ... and wait
 
there is no need for you to dodge; Mueller will soon tell us to what degree, if any, collusion was found

hold onto something close by that you can hold in your hand ... and wait

Who's dodging? I have stated I am resigning from all forums if Trump us guilty of collusion. You however were not able to provide any facts that show he did. I need to hold onto nothing. I am 100% correct.
 
I wanted to address this part of your post. All news outlets have a corporate slant to some extent. The question is how much it interferes with their news judgment. Outside of the Rowan Farrow situation on MSNBC (a huge huge blunder), I think both stations have been fairly decent. The fact that CNN gets criticized by Trump (and that meme has become widespread) is garbage. They are certainly better than Fox. Way way way better.

I'm not interested in 'way, way better'. That's an insanely low bar.

So, why did you mention Trump's criticism of the media while addressing my own . . . are you under the impression that our criticism is the same? Do you feel that the fact that Donald Trump critisizes the media, invalidates all criticism of the media?

I'm actually a little confused. You've got AOC as an avatar and you're stated lean is progressive, yet you're defending someone who fed Hillary Clinton debate questions because Fox News is so much worse?

And no, not all media has a corporate slant. It's true of mainstream media in general, but not all media. There's TYT, which I consider to have an actual left-leaning slant.
 
The more talent Fox hires, the less CNN has. She was probably quite constrained in what she could say. CNN, and has to be a horrible place to work when you are prevented from saying what you believe. She is too laid back and has too much gravitas to put up with the screeching creeps at CNN.

Compared to the democrats today, she is right wing.

Lastly, the Mueller probe will end eventually and there will be chaos in the news business, and Fox is realigning now.

She resigned from CNN in October of 2016. CNN hasn't had her "talent" in 2 1/2 years.

Se resigned from CNN for giving debate questions to Clinton, and she was never "constrained" by CNN as to what she could say.

Why do you lie?
 
Who's dodging? I have stated I am resigning from all forums if Trump us guilty of collusion. You however were not able to provide any facts that show he did. I need to hold onto nothing. I am 100% correct.
[emphasis added by bubba to address that portion of the post]

i tend to avoid your hyperbolic posts, so when the time comes, after Mueller's revelations, allow me to say 'goodbye' now
 
Well, she's pretty much banned on the left. She went off the Democratic reservation on several occasions. Can't have that. She might do very well on Fox; other liberals have.
 
She resigned from CNN in October of 2016. CNN hasn't had her "talent" in 2 1/2 years.

Se resigned from CNN for giving debate questions to Clinton, and she was never "constrained" by CNN as to what she could say.

Why do you lie?
Lying presumes I knew the truth. Maybe you should break out a dictionary and not act like a grade schooler. I dont spend much time on CNN and I assumed she was still there. CNN is so dour, its a total downer. Im surprised even you watch it. I’d sooner watch execution videos.
 
Lying presumes I knew the truth. Maybe you should break out a dictionary and not act like a grade schooler. I dont spend much time on CNN and I assumed she was still there. CNN is so dour, its a total downer. Im surprised even you watch it. I’d sooner watch execution videos.

I would never presume that you know the truth about anything.

I don't watch CNN. I follow the news. And I also check to make sure I know what I'm posting about before i post it so I don't look stupid.
 
[emphasis added by bubba to address that portion of the post]

i tend to avoid your hyperbolic posts, so when the time comes, after Mueller's revelations, allow me to say 'goodbye' now

Lets test that faux confidence of yours for veracity. I did not see you make the same claim if the opposite is true. Did I miss that or are you not 100% confident in yourself like us Alpha males are?
 
You wouldn't hire her because she is not of your political beliefs. That's it. That is all you have ever shown me you care about.

I'm glad you're so easily amused. I'm not trying to show you anything, and you do not speak for me. I wouldn't hire Brazile because she is unethical. Period.
 
I don't understand the significance of the fact that you quoted somebody else. That shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not another person comes in and responds to what's being said. I've never known into be a breach of forum etiqutte, or to even be considered to be unusual to respond to someone in this manner.

You're making something out of nothing; my only point is that I myself didn't use the term "Far Left."

That said, I don't disagree with your main point. I don't trust Brazile, either. It's negligence on my part to not have cleared that up in my original response. I nit-picked the 'far-left' bit because that seems to be where we actually disagree. I'm not interested in defending Donna, nor comparing and contrasting her to other Fox officials.

And yes, perspective is everything. What a liberal/progressive considers to be 'far-left' is going to be different from what a conservative considers to be far left [Captain Obvious is here to save the day . . .] I often get the vibe that terms like that are too-often attributed to groups that a person doesn't like, rather than being an accurate representation of the Overton window in America. I'm far too used to people mentioning Pelosi and AOC in the same breath, as if they were best-buds. My first thought when I see the term used, is to wonder if the person is talking about soc-dems, Antifa, or if they merely percieve the Democratic party as being to the left of where they had been in prior decades.

I agree with you here. And I need to add that for me, seeing someone as an individual matters more than seeing him or her as a member of a group. Some of the people I love are "progressives," and they're wonderful people...just wrong, usually. ;)

In terms of perception, I view MSNBC and CNN to have more of a corporatist slant than an actual liberal one. They're all rich, stuck in an elitist bubble, and beholden to corporate advertising. We live in a day and age when a non-interventionist like Gabbard gets the piss taken out of her because she's against unneccessary military action . . . but so-called leftist media. To me, that's just nuts, and not indicative of a leftist idealogical slant.

I can agree with you only in part. CNN's using Buzzfeed to leak the salacious claims of the Steele report so that they could then report on it was unprincipled ad chicken**** too.
 
I'm glad you're so easily amused.
What can I say, when I see a blatant lack of honesty and/or self-awareness in people, it makes me laugh.

I'm not trying to show you anything
Irrelevant to the fact you have. :shrug:

, and you do not speak for me.
Who said I did? I am just pointing out your real positions do not match what you stated. :shrug:

I wouldn't hire Brazile because she is unethical. Period.
:lamo

See my first sentence in this post.
 
I'm not interested in 'way, way better'. That's an insanely low bar.

Agreed.

So, why did you mention Trump's criticism of the media while addressing my own . . . are you under the impression that our criticism is the same? Do you feel that the fact that Donald Trump critisizes the media, invalidates all criticism of the media?

No, absolutely not. I would not have mentioned the Ronan Farrow incident if I thought the media was above criticism. But I do thing the right-wing's comments about CNN,for example,have really clouded the 'scape. They do a lot better job than they're given credit for.

I'm actually a little confused. You've got AOC as an avatar and you're stated lean is progressive, yet you're defending someone who fed Hillary Clinton debate questions because Fox News is so much worse?

Was I defending Brazile? I was only tagging what Bill Maher said last Friday that Fox News viewers need to hear Democratic voices. We'll see what Brazile does. It was obviously a move by Fox to get a high-profile Dem in their ranks. And with the low information level of their viewers, their fans will over-magnify it as Fox does with everything.

And no, not all media has a corporate slant. It's true of mainstream media in general, but not all media. There's TYT, which I consider to have an actual left-leaning slant.

Can't say I'm a huge fan on TYT. I did watch it when it was on Current TV and it was too much Cenk Uygur for my taste. I have to say I haven't seen much since.

As far as my avatar, it's to bug the righties who think she's Satan. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom