But, you know, the remarkable thing about Trump......He hired Flynn.  He hired Manafort.  He hired Bannon.

Everyone else who was anyone apparently knew these guys had all kinds of baggage and problems.  Even if it was something you could possibly look past, they didn't have the qualifications to get that benefit.  Trump hired him.

The only thing funnier than this whole Bannon tift is watching the left and the right flip on Bannon based on how whatever he says aligns with their views.  My god this country is just filled with so many idiots.

posted by gut

Article in the WSJ how only 4 large developed countries have a higher debt burden than the US - Portugal, Italy, Greece and Japan.

Those economies are all doing gangbusters, so I'm sure more debt bodes well for the US!

Portugal, Italy and Greece all owe their debts in a currency they don’t control. 

Japan owes it’s debts in its own currency and has turned things around since the start of Abenomics which showed rooseveltian resolve for higher inflation through fiscal and monetary stimulus despite large public treasury supplies. 

What’s the result? 2.7% unemployment and rising GDP even in the face of an aging population and strict controls on immigration. 

Not hard to see why Abe has easily won re-election twice since 2012.

Thankfully we have Republicans in the U.S. who ignore the deficit and don’t appoint people to the Fed who raise rates rapidly when they have power rather than following your preferred policies which would not Make America Great Again! 

posted by gut

LOL, that's the hard part of the comparison vs. Obama - what is the proper "fair" amount of negative coverage?

But anything remotely close to 90% is clearly agenda-driven and focused mainly on non-policy.  If you were to focus purely on policy - which is what we generally would expect from news - then maybe it should be about 30-40% positive or negative, and about 20-30% neutral.  Coincidentally, Fox's coverage of Obama is pretty close to those numbers.

So I'd agree Trump drives a lot of non-policy coverage of himself, and much of that is justifiably negative.  That's probably how you get an otherwise balanced coverage at Fox up to 52% negative.  But looking at coverage on MSNBC or CNN, it's just completely unhinged libtardism.

What kills me is that while CNN and MSNBC are unhinged libtardism, you actually seem to think Fox is balanced. CNN and MSNBC took the playbook from Fox when Fox killed them in the ratings! 

posted by CenterBHSFan

 

They've had some of the same complaints in NYC. 
Who runs these cities? >.>

Pretty sure read that New York had its lowest murder rate since the 50’s in 2017? 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Ok, in case I had any ideas left in my brain that the democrats were halfway decent...

https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/948737536456777728

Almost as dumb of a use of social media by a party leader as tweeting that your nuclear button is bigger than North Korea’s. 

I guess you’re out of parties to vote for, eh’?

posted by BoatShoes

Almost as dumb of a use of social media by a party leader as tweeting that your nuclear button is bigger than North Korea’s. 

I guess you’re out of parties to vote for, eh’?

Nope could have voted libertarian. Spin zone for Gary Johnson and Aleppo is the fact he couldn’t drone them since he doesn’t know where it is. 

posted by BoatShoes

What kills me is that while CNN and MSNBC are unhinged libtardism, you actually seem to think Fox is balanced. CNN and MSNBC took the playbook from Fox when Fox killed them in the ratings! 

No, Fox is not good.  It IS better, much better, than CNN or MSNBC.  Like I said, Fox has been more negative on Trump than it was on Obama...chew on that one.

You simply can't defend 90% negative coverage, coverage almost exclusively focused on personal bullshit instead of, you know, actual policy.  That's not even trying to pretend to be balanced, or rational.

posted by gut

No, Fox is not good.  It IS better, much better, than CNN or MSNBC.  Like I said, Fox has been more negative on Trump than it was on Obama...chew on that one.

You simply can't defend 90% negative coverage, coverage almost exclusively focused on personal bullshit instead of, you know, actual policy.  That's not even trying to pretend to be balanced, or rational.

I'm not going to disagree that all of these news organizations are terrible.  They're ultimately after ratings, so that will drive content.  I do think trying to measure negativity is a fool's errand though.  That is a subjective evaluation - what's negative to one person may not be to another.  

posted by BoatShoes

Portugal, Italy and Greece all owe their debts in a currency they don’t control. 

Japan

LMFAO at this entire post, and then looking at a recovery from the 2009 recession - to levels just barely above the mid-90's to claim Japan has been doing well under Abenomics.  Hint: that's not growth.

I'd ask, again, what the hell you actually read but it pretty clearly doesn't matter.  Of course, I know you love that European-style sub 2% growth....you probably think that's "goldilocks".  Japan has been searching, unsuccessfully, for a solution for 2+ decades - massive deficit spending has not created growth.

posted by BoatShoes

Almost as dumb of a use of social media by a party leader as tweeting that your nuclear button is bigger than North Korea’s. 

I guess you’re out of parties to vote for, eh’?

If the prez recieved any semblance of balanced coverage by the media, he would not need twitter.  But being able to 'speak' directly to the idiot in charge of NK and make your point is not necessarily a bad thing.

posted by QuakerOats

If the prez recieved any semblance of balanced coverage by the media, he would not need twitter.  But being able to 'speak' directly to the idiot in charge of NK and make your point is not necessarily a bad thing.

It becomes a bad thing when the world leader taking to Twitter does so in a way that makes one think of a middle school-age troll.

posted by QuakerOats

If the prez recieved any semblance of balanced coverage by the media, he would not need twitter.  But being able to 'speak' directly to the idiot in charge of NK and make your point is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

If the US president says, "I'm going to do X", that is going to be widely reported in the media.  There are so many media outlets available that people can find out he facts six ways to Sunday.  Trump has pushed this fake news stuff becuase half the shit he says isn't true.  If he keeps saying fake news everytime someone calls him on it, the lemmings will buy that hook line and sinker.

He needs to use twitter?  What, to insunuate his big cock to Kim?  To pontificate on Arnold's reality show hosting ability?  Are these the types of critical bits of information that he must fight to get through the big bad media conspiracy?  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

...becuase half the shit he says isn't true.   

That's only half accurate....the other half is fake news

posted by gut

   Like I said, Fox has been more negative on Trump than it was on Obama...chew on that one.

 

Please, provide some evidence for this opinion.  

posted by salto

Please, provide some evidence for this opinion.  

There was a study posted a while ago after the first 60 days in office or something.  I'm sure you can use Google.

posted by gut

 

There was a study posted a while ago after the first 60 days in office or something.  I'm sure you can use Google.

Maybe you can help me. All I can find is a study that analyzed the following:

the nightly evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, as well as the print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek across the first 60 days of each of the past four presidencies

I can't imagine you would pull that claim about Fox News right out of your ads now would you? 

Fox has covered Trump negatively 52-48%...pretty close to the same ratio as they did Obama over the same span. The main difference is with the rest of the networks, who cover Trump negatively about 93% of the time thus far.

posted by BoatShoes

Maybe you can help me. All I can find is a study that analyzed the following:

the nightly evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, as well as the print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek across the first 60 days of each of the past four presidencies

 

I can't imagine you would pull that claim about Fox News right out of your ads now would you? 

I've rarely been proven wrong or ill informed here.

You, as usual, are clueless

Faux News has been more negative on Trump than they were on Obama.  I understand how hard that is to process when you're brainwahsed by bullshit.  

I eagerly await your irrelevant link to a Krugman article.

posted by fish82

Fox has covered Trump negatively 52-48%...pretty close to the same ratio as they did Obama over the same span. The main difference is with the rest of the networks, who cover Trump negatively about 93% of the time thus far.

You are 100% correct. ...Hannity is not FOX, and the alleged "bias" of FOX is mainly that they cover things differently than the liberal media.

posted by gut

You are 100% correct. ...Hannity is not FOX, and the alleged "bias" of FOX is mainly that they cover things differently than the liberal media.

FFS Hannity is Fox. Just like Maddow is MSNBC. WTF are you talking about? 

I know there is two parts to Fox News, but FFS Trump follows and is influenced by the fucked up part, like Hannity, Tucker, and Fox and Friends, Just look at what they cover and his tweets. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

FFS Hannity is Fox. Just like Maddow is MSNBC. WTF are you talking about? 

LFMAO......what useful idiot road job.  It's 1 hour out of the entire day - Hannity IS NOT FOX (unless you're a lib, and that's what you need to believe).

I'm sorry if it destroys what you'd like your worldview to be....But Fox - as shitty as they are - ARE much more fair and balanced than the other news networks.

Well yes, I would concur, in relation to the other networks Fox is way more Trump friendly. But, that does not mean they are right. All three networks are fucked up and wrong. But, you can follow what Fox reports to what Trump tweets. 

I've actually heard several liberal and gressy commentators/vloggers say that FOX news has become one of the, if not the, most reasonable sources of news. Now, that is mainly due to CNN and NYT having TDS.

I just now did a halfassed google search to see if I can find data to support their claims but I can't find anything newer than a year old. And, at 5:40am I'm not in the mood to get a good search on. But I don't think we're going to find anything good to support yea or nay towards this because I imagine nobody wants to touch a poll like that with a ten foot pole right about now.

Funnily enough, one of the brands that I saw listed before FOX news in one of the older polls was The Blaze (Glenn Beck) lol!

posted by gut

 

There was a study posted a while ago after the first 60 days in office or something.  I'm sure you can use Google.

Yea, it's bullshit.  The only news reporting it.......is Fox.

There are just too many exceptional quotes in this article so instead of filling the post with quotes, I'll just drop the link:

https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/the-video-of-the-man-saving-the-rabbit-from-the-fire-ca-1821184637