world

Democrats bar Fox News from televising debates after reported Trump ties

91 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

91 Comments
Login to comment

Ah, the enemy of the people, right, Trumpists? Expect a full on orchestrated attack on the Dems by the Murdoch press by this, er, revelation.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

I’m not sure this a good idea. Any presidential candidate worth his or her salt should be able to give any of these preposterous Fox bobble-heads a firm swat when they forget about being fair and balanced while still focusing on debate.

I still remember Bill Clinton giving Chris Matthews and Fox an almighty hiding in an interview. It was almost painful to watch.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Trumpophiles will be spouting off soon enough how this is evidence that the Dems aren't interested in a free press. Never mind that they agree with Trump that thd press is the enemy of the people.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

What Jimizo said. But there are two kinds of Democrats. Those who want to write off the 60 million Americans who voted for Trump and those who want to reach out to them. You can't win without peeling a good number of them away (after all, quite a few voted for Obama before being turned off by Clinton).

In other words, politicians should campaign for every American's vote in every corner of the nation, however red or blue. Maybe if Hillary had spent more time talking to working class whites in places like Wisconsin and less time speaking to Goldman Sachs' execs. we'd not be where we are today. Just maybe though given her "America is already great" rhetoric contradicted the reality on the ground for so many. Rallies are the place for political silos of adoring crowds. Debates are supposed to be nasty affairs. Want civility, join a knitting circle.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

What Jimizo said. But there are two kinds of Democrats. Those who want to write off the 60 million Americans who voted for Trump and those who want to reach out to them. 

You have to separate Trump's base from the reasonable portion of those that voted for him. His base has proven time and again that they are impervious to facts, reason, and logic.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

And the facts are:

Climate change is real -- yes, but China and India are the biggest polluters

Medicare for all -- been to a hospital in the UK lately? Innovation stops when the profit motive disappears.

Free college tuition -- ever been in a class or training program were some of the students are on PELL grants?

There's not crisis at the southern border: guess you are only watching the MSM; these invaders are bringing with them diseases that were irradiated from the US decades ago...

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

You have to separate Trump's base from the reasonable portion of those that voted for him. His base has proven time and again that they are impervious to facts, reason, and logic.

I don't have to do any such thing. I agree that much of his base wouldn't turn on him if he started manufacturing Soylent Green on the White House lawn. But I see no value in constantly insulting them, or justifying it by saying they're just as bad. I read someone recommending their mass suicide the other day. Doesn't that seems rather debased? I imagine the non voter or the slightly disenchanted republican coming across such rhetoric and feeling just as alienated by our side, just as likely to sit another cycle out.

Regardless of how ugly online politics is, the only way to build a movement is to talk to everyone, treat everyone with respect. Of course, I occasionally ridicule certain commenters, but I also recognize that however retrograde some are, that they have friends, family members, people in their communities not as educated as we are or as committed politically to any party or leader. I have family in Kentucky and West Virginia and while it pains me that some of their friends or extended family vote GOP, how counterproductive would it be on visits home to insult them. Condescend to someone, even someone who doesn't vote, and I can tell you one thing--no rational argument, no explanations about their self-interest will ever reach them after that. In fact, out of pique they just might be motivated to go vote against us the next time.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Fox should be shunned by everyone including their corporate advertisers who are supporting a propaganda channel.

It's about time. Democrats have pretended that Fox News was a legitimate news channel for way too long.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Fox is far from a legitimate news organization - it is, as was described above, the closest we have to a State TV for Trumpers and some conservatives.

But we (those that believe in the Constitution) do not censor - allow Fox to attend, but when they lie or distort what occured to fit their agenda, call them out. No one was better at that than John Stewart.

We're not them - we're better...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Fox should be shunned by everyone including their corporate advertisers who are supporting a propaganda channel.

Yes, shun the most watched network, a network that caters to not only conservatives and some liberals, but also to a lot of independents or persuadables. Democrats are not smart, we went down this road before when Obama and Anita Dunn went after FNC (which was the dumbest thing that administration could have ever done) not only did it badly misfire, but it actually helped their ratings, so once again, let the liberals shun FNC, better they do it now and kill the only network that reaches nmore households in the US. We get it, they don’t want to answer hard hitting questions, but to be honest, I have a feeling they will buckle, they’re not that stupid...but then again....

It's about time. Democrats have pretended that Fox News was a legitimate news channel for way too long.

What are you talking about? No, Democrats want FNC to bow down and give them softball interviews like back in the day when everyone would go on Larry King and why did everyone go? Because Larry would let you talk, spin and say whatever you want and that’s what the Dems want from FNC. Good lord...please don’t ask me how we want to pay for socialism, we can’t answer that. We need to tell FNC they can’t come, they’ll ask questions we just don’t want to answer, boy, I’m not surprised.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates

Oh, but CNN and MSNBC are. LOL

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

I get their reasoning since Fox is far from trustworthy and is in Trump's back pocket. but I really don't see what it accomplishes and the RNC can play the same game.

What I've learned by following Fox for a while now is that it's just a collection of personalities. I'd have zero problems with a Fox debate hosted by Shep Shepard and Chris Wallace. They actually speak up and present alternative views, and they aren't afraid to call crazy GOP things crazy. They are the newsmen.

On the other side you have the entertainers. Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Fox & Friends. They are the opposite of the news guys. Their job is to increase ratings and fear/outrage is usually the easiest way to do that with the older demographic they cater to. End of our economy, end of our culture, end of our country, we are the victims, etc.

Then you have FoxNews.com which is more or less turning into Breitbart with the non-stop culture war. It's used as a vehicle for conservatives to go after anyone who is left of their position, and especially famous people, or people who got into it with Trump.

Lots of negative headlines about the NFL, Hollywood and movie stars, etc. Steve Carell did a skit on SNL where he played Bezos and made fun of Trump, and sure enough when his movie came out it to disappointing numbers it was front page of Fox. They have a hit list. They really, really do. Nike. Target. The View.

It would really depend on who they would choose to moderate and who would be deciding the questions. But I think the DNC can take it.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

What I've learned by following Fox for a while now is that it's just a collection of personalities...

You haven't learned much. Then again you don't really pay attention to what they say, do you?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I haven't considered whatever "Fox News" broadcasts as "News" for some time. Bad behavior should have repercussions. That applies to all "News" - regardless of from where it is published.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

Factual Reporting: MIXED

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You haven't learned much.

Nobody can learn anything from dumbed down content like Fox. It's Pravda for those who believe their hamburgers are going to be taken by the Democrats.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The White House told off reporters about not toeing the official trump line on Venezuela, with Rubio accusing CNN of Russian collusion. Who can you trust?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I get their reasoning since Fox is far from trustworthy and is in Trump's back pocket.

The way ever liberal network, over 244 in Obama’s backpocket? Do proceed....

but I really don't see what it accomplishes and the RNC can play the same game.

Yup!

What I've learned by following Fox for a while now is that it's just a collection of personalities. I'd have zero problems with a Fox debate hosted by Shep Shepard and Chris Wallace. They actually speak up and present alternative views, and they aren't afraid to call crazy GOP things crazy. They are the newsmen.

They’re liberal and they hate Trump, s that defeats the liberals argument that FNC is a mouthpiece for Trump.....I forgot...Juan Williams is another one.

On the other side you have the entertainers. Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Fox & Friends.

They are the opposite of the news guys. Their job is to increase ratings and fear/outrage is usually the easiest way to do that with the older demographic they cater to. End of our economy, end of our culture, end of our country, we are the victims, etc.

Just like Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper, Tapper, King, Scarborough, Brezenski and Maddow, so what’s your point

Then you have FoxNews.com which is more or less turning into Breitbart with the non-stop culture war. It's used as a vehicle for conservatives to go after anyone who is left of their position, and especially famous people, or people who got into it with Trump. 

What?

Lots of negative headlines about the NFL, Hollywood and movie stars, etc. Steve Carell did a skit on SNL where he played Bezos and made fun of Trump, and sure enough when his movie came out it to disappointing numbers it was front page of Fox. They have a hit list. They really, really do. Nike. Target. The View.

CNN and msnbc are the biggest liberal agenda pushers around, at least CNN to their credit will have an occasional conservative as long as they don’t tee off the pundits otherwise they will be blacklisted, msnbc won’t usually have any conservative to give an alternate point of view.

It would really depend on who they would choose to moderate and who would be deciding the questions. But I think the DNC can take it.

With lower viewer numbers, they could.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

You haven't learned much. Then again you don't really pay attention to what they say, do you?

Please tell us your links to entertainers like Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham are not your serious attempt to educate people.

That isn’t what these people are employed to do.

You do know that, right?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The Sinclair media grouping is another one I'd be deeply suspicious about, too. They're still under the radar for most, though.

They’re liberal and they hate Trump, s that defeats the liberals argument that FNC is a mouthpiece for Trump..

You can always identify Fox news fans. Like porous sponges, they drink it all in and reckon everyone who doesn't subscribe to their point of view is a liberal.

Fox is biased towards Trump but yes, he does have his critics on the network. As anyone with even the vaguest passing interest in media can tell you, this is how media giants are. The BBC is famously seen as left wing by conservative elements and seen as right wing by left wingers. The fact of the matter is, it has a mixture of both ends (and all the in betweens) of the political spectrum. But it's overwhelmingly neo-liberal these days, having been neutered post-David Kelly/dodgy dossier incidents. It's certainly not far left or Marxist as some would describe it. Your actual far left person would scoff at the suggestion.

Still, debates take place and the more neutral the network, the better. Fox and its inherent bias (and boss) poses a problem to the democratic process. When a news giant has the President's ear, when someone like Murdoch is yer bezzie mate, that's when it's time to show concern. That's when media becomes propaganda and a tool for the rich, the powerful, the dictators.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't have to do any such thing.

When I said "you," I wasn't speaking of you directly. Feel free to do what you want. This is an anonymous internet message board.

But I see no value in constantly insulting them, or justifying it by saying they're just as bad. I read someone recommending their mass suicide the other day. Doesn't that seems rather debased? I imagine the non voter or the slightly disenchanted republican coming across such rhetoric and feeling just as alienated by our side, just as likely to sit another cycle out.

Fair enough. I see little value in trying to change the tone of political discourse on anonymous internet message boards.

Of course, I occasionally ridicule certain commenters, but I also recognize that however retrograde some are, that they have friends, family members, people in their communities not as educated as we are or as committed politically to any party or leader.

You're not the only one.

I have family in Kentucky and West Virginia and while it pains me that some of their friends or extended family vote GOP, how counterproductive would it be on visits home to insult them.

Agreed. These threads aren't face-to-face communications.

Condescend to someone, even someone who doesn't vote, and I can tell you one thing--no rational argument, no explanations about their self-interest will ever reach them after that. In fact, out of pique they just might be motivated to go vote against us the next time.

Agreed.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

liberals lack the ability to treat a Trump voter reasonably as jcapan suggested. If you couid, you might win.

I voted for Obama twice but you wouldn’t know it by the way people attack me here.

So based on how liberals and Dems in general act towards Trump voters, I wouldn’t want to ever be on their team.

You have to separate Trump's base from the reasonable portion of those that voted for him. His base has proven time and again that they are impervious to facts, reason, and logic.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Those debates should be on C-Span and PBS only.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I just can’t support this type of “protect our team while investigating the other side for late DVD returns” type things.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Wednesday, telling reporters that while Omar had made anti-Jewish remarks in recent weeks, she had not been “intentionally antisemitic.”

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I just can’t support this type of “protect our team while investigating the other side for late DVD returns” type things.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Wednesday, telling reporters that while Omar had made anti-Jewish remarks in recent weeks, she had not been “intentionally antisemitic

Fair point. There is too much of this. Omar needs to knock the anti-Semitic dog whistles on the head.

Were the Republicans, Fox News or your good self slamming Trump for his ‘good people on both sides’ comment when white supremacists were marching chanting that Jews will not replace us?

Just making sure you aren’t in protection mode yourself.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Fox News definitely reported it, unlike liberal media who just routinely ignore any stories that are bad for their side.

I’m not in protection mode as every real or fake item related to Trump gets incessant coverage until it’s debunked or a new attack replaces it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Interesting article on Ilhan Omar here, which also mentions Jim Jordan and

Then, of course, there is Trump’s own long history of antisemitic remarks, which include his claim that among neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville in August 2017, “there were some very fine people”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/ilhan-omar-weaponisation-of-anti-semitism

As the article points out, It should not be difficult to recognize the meaningful distinction between Ilhan Omar’s recent comments and the kind of antisemitism and xenophobia surging on the right that led a rightwing extremist to murder 11 Jews in a synagogue.

As the debate heats up (even more) about the media, corporate backing, elitists and who's worse/better than the other, it is important to keep an eye on the dog whistles, and call them out. And not just from elected representatives but also the media. And a reminder that mentions of NWO/globalists and Soros ct's count as said whistles.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Toasted Heretic

To be fair, the Guardian is almost as predictable as Fox News these days and I’m a lifelong reader of that paper.

If there were odds available on how the Guardian or Fox News will react to something, I’d be cleaning up at the bookies.

Predictable guff for the most part.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To be fair, the Guardian is almost as predictable as Fox News these days and I’m a lifelong reader of that paper.

You don't think that there's people conflating anti-Semitism with genuine criticism of the pro-Israeli lobby?

I do like reading Kenan Malik, Paul Mason and George Monbiot - I think they don't belong to the more predictable side of the paper, as you put it.

Personally, it's too liberal and Blairite for my liking but I still trust it far more than Faux News. Their audiences are hardly likely to suddenly drop their support for Trump, come the debates. The guy could literally grab one of the other speakers and get away with it. Probably a ratings winner, too.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Please tell us your links to entertainers

I got links from half of the Democrats and Hollywood. ROFL!

You can always identify Fox news fans. Like porous sponges, they drink it all in and reckon everyone who doesn't subscribe to their point of view is a liberal.

Says the people that support the Russian witch hunt....hmmm...

Fox is biased towards Trump but yes, he does have his critics on the network.

msnbc was more biased towards Obama and CNN towards Hillary, what is your point?

As anyone with even the vaguest passing interest in media can tell you, this is how media giants are. The BBC is famously seen as left wing by conservative elements and seen as right wing by left wingers. The fact of the matter is, it has a mixture of both ends (and all the in betweens) of the political spectrum.

Not true, I won’t mention any names, but there was a reporter I know that works for a very large network and during the Bush years he was very supportive of the Iraq war and was invited to appear on a panel, he came, did the interview, but aftward, he received a letter that his views were not in line with the network and was censured and not allowed back into the country and that lasted for a good 5 years, so please don’t make the remark that they are not biased, we have an office in Burbank California and I know all too well of their American biases.

Still, debates take place and the more neutral the network, the better. Fox and its inherent bias (and boss) poses a problem to the democratic process.

Ok, well that explains why Zucker and Griffin are bias....they support left leaning causes. I get it.

When a news giant has the President's ear, when someone like Murdoch is yer bezzie mate, that's when it's time to show concern. That's when media becomes propaganda and a tool for the rich, the powerful, the dictators.

Well, Sharpton and Immelt definitely had Obama’s ear and they definitely pushed his disastrous agenda. So I guess it all boils down to which political side of the fence you feel more comfortable in. I’m not a liberal so I guess CNN and msnbc as far as cable news is concerned are out.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The first paragraph needs a bit of editing. Let me give it a try:

"The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday said it will not allow Fox News to host any of its candidates' political debates through 2020, citing a concern that Fox's moderators would actually ask Democrats fair but tough questions rather than the easy volleys that they usually get from the media."

There. That ought to do it. I believe it's much more accurate now.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

so please don’t make the remark that they are not biased, we have an office in Burbank California and I know all too well of their American biases.

If you actually read my post, you'll see that I said they are all biased to a certain degree and this is how media giants are.

msnbc was more biased towards Obama and CNN towards Hillary, what is your point?

My point is the one I made, in agreement with you that yes, he does have his critics on Fox. Doesn't mean that they are automatically liberals.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You don't think that there's people conflating anti-Semitism with genuine criticism of the pro-Israeli lobby?

Of course, but she did apologise, and rightly so, for using textbook anti-Semitic cliches that wouldn’t have been out of place coming from the far-right.

Call it out every time and criticise anyone doing it.

Let the media like Fox get on with their Punch and Judy show.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Of course, but she did apologise, and rightly so, for using textbook anti-Semitic cliches that wouldn’t have been out of place coming from the far-right.

And it's good that she owned up to her ignorance on that. I wish more people would do so.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The DNS has decided to stop pretending that Fox "News" is a legitimate news organization, rather than news-based entertainment.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

liberals lack the ability to treat a Trump voter reasonably as jcapan suggested. If you couid, you might win.

Starting off with a blanket statement that simply isn't true and then whining about treating people reasonably. Sophisticated.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

On one side people are being physically attacked simply for supporting Trump or wearing a red cap. The other side constantly creating hoaxes or fake attacks to try to show they too are being attacked.

But they aren’t. Even here, all the name calling and insults to anyone who has even a kind word to say about Trump once. Your side is just pushing more and more people away with your conduct. It’s why Trump won in 2016 and if you want to lose 2020 just keep doing it. I thought it was a good point that was made about engaging the other side on actual policy instead of rhetoric.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

pushing more and more people away with your conduct. It’s why Trump won in 2016 

That’s a good one. Trump won in 2016 because of his refined and civil manner.

I can’t even be bothered keeping track of the constantly changing narratives about Trump that his zealous followers concoct.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

President Trump should hold a rally in every town on the same night/time a DNC/KKK primary debate is taking place and only issue press credentials to the FNC.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nobody can learn anything from dumbed down content like Fox. It's Pravda for those who believe their hamburgers are going to be taken by the Democrats.

We don't believe the Democrats are gonna take our hamburgers because we don't believe the majority of the American voters are gonna have a brain fart big enough to elect Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Waren ( all of who support the green New Deal which wants to eliminate cows - yep - check it out! ) president or let Democrats control the House or the Senate from 2020.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

And it's good that she owned up to her ignorance on that. I wish more people would do so.

As if she really meant it from her heart.

Starting off with a blanket statement that simply isn't true

Ok, so what’s the winning strategy for Democrats? Lol

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

President Trump should hold a rally in every town on the same night/time a DNC/KKK primary debate is taking place and only issue press credentials to the FNC.

When are these DNC/KKK debates taking place?

Are the KKK putting candidates into the race, or are you spreading lies?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Cruz and other headbangers are pushing the cows and burgers angle, deflecting from the fact that our planet desperately needs measures to prevent any more damage to the climate.

any comprehensive climate plan must take cows into account, with one obvious solution being to reduce their population. That doesn’t mean taking away people’s hamburgers, but it does mean making it a rarer, and thus more expensive, product. This is hardly the greatest sacrifice that will be required to prevent a civilizational catastrophe. But if the world’s population simply reduced its meat and dairy consumption, scientists say the effect would be massive.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153187/potency-republicans-hamburger-lie

1 ( +2 / -1 )

David Duke has endorsed a Dem candidate for President who I assume will be part of these CNN debates.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

our planet desperately needs measures to prevent any more damage to the climate.

Talk to Mother Nature about that, it's an ongoing natural progression that's been going on for millennia and humans can't stop. We might be able to slow it down though if we stop eating hamb, er, reduce our meat and dairy consumption and stop flying in aircraft, driving gas powered cars and burning fossil fuels, but we can't stop it.

these CNN debates

The Republicans should bar CNN from televising debates on account of their blatant bias. How about PBS? Or TASS? hehe

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The modern day democrats side its new leader, Ohmar, and by fiat with David Duke, when it comes to the Jewish community in this country. it has exposed itself as a political party of bigots and all those who support it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Our president responded to Perez' dictum:

"Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!"

Bravo, Mr. President

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

David Duke has endorsed a Dem candidate for President who I assume will be part of these CNN debates.

Didn't David Duke support Trump? Let me guess, Dule's endorsement indicates the person he is endorsing is a racist only when that person isn't your guy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/trump-disavows-support-from-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke/amp/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump won 2016 because he made uneducated white people believe they are victims in the US. They finally feel like they have someone who will fight back for them.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

You have a congresswoman that’s a racist, you have two sitting Democrats in the State of VA that are racists, Democrats worshipped (especially Hillary) a former Grand Wizard, come on now.....

Fair points.

Any comment on a man with a history of not renting to black people, saying there were good people on both sides of a white supremacist rally and retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group?

There is too much of taking sides these days.

Let the resident non-partisan take the lead and call racism out regardless of sides.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Amazing how no one was saying Trump was racist until he ran for president.

I’d hazard a guess that the black peoples refused accommodation may have thought otherwise.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Not all Trump voters are poorly educated or racists,

Ya don't say!

but I think it’s fair to say he got the lions’s share of poorly educated and racist votes.

I know it's fair to say he got the lion's share of common sense votes.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Trump won 2016 because he made uneducated white people believe they are victims in the US.

So what about the uneducated blacks that voted overwhelmingly for Obama that were led to believe he was the next incarnation? Buyers remorse?

They finally feel like they have someone who will fight back for them.

Ahhh, now I understand why liberals praised the guy

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Fair points. 

Any comment on a man with a history of not renting to black people,

Well, it had nothing to do with color, the drug dealers at time were pretty much all black and especially the time he was there was the peak epidemic of smack, heroin, LSD, a lot of intentional fires set by the mob so that the owners could collect on the insurance money, Trump didn’t want none of that on his property, don’t blame him, we’re these people white, there would be complete silence. If you are really worried about racism, worry about VA, they have two for the price of one or Omar with her outlandish racist comments.

saying there were good people on both sides of a white supremacist rally and retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group? 

Omar’s racist statement was not deliberate or intentional, said: Pelosi. These people are nuts and cowardly for not taking this woman on.

There is too much of taking sides these days. 

I agree.

Let the resident non-partisan take the lead and call racism out regardless of sides.

As always.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Any comment on a man with a history of not renting to black people,

Bass: Well, it had nothing to do with color

They marked rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” So I’m guessing color had something to do with it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

saying there were good people on both sides of a white supremacist rally and retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group? 

Omar’s racist statement was not deliberate or intentional, said: Pelosi. These people are nuts and cowardly for not taking this woman on.

Fair point. If a Republican had said or wrote it, the Democrats would have fed on it.

How about Trump saying there were good people on the side of a white supremacist march and retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group?

This goes both ways.

Why can’t you call out both?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

a lot of intentional fires set by the mob so that the owners could collect on the insurance money, Trump didn’t want none of that on his property, don’t blame him, we’re these people white, there would be complete silence. 

Yet Trump didn't refuse to rent to all Italians. Go figure.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Even though Fox "News" is only pretending to be news, when in fact it's news entertainment, with no more actual value as news than the late night talk show hosts like Colbert, banning them from the DNC will just cause the GOP to do the same to actual news organizations, and give the right a martyr to wine about.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They marked rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” So I’m guessing color had something to do with it.

I heard that fabrication from the defense side.

How about Trump saying there were good people on the side of a white supremacist march and retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group? 

How about the Democrats praising a former Grand Wizard, Hillary saying he was her mentor. Sen. Byrd did an interview with the late great Tony Snow and used a racial slur in describing Blacks. Democrats claim is was a nice a decent man.

This goes both ways. 

Why can’t you call out both?

Granted the President often and admittedly says things off the cuff, but if liberals want to call him out for those comments then we can call out the comments of the Dems praising openly a former Klansman.

Just keeping it real.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Omar, two VA Democrat Congressmen, Smollet staging a falsified racial hate crime, punching kids on college campuses, threatening to kill them because of the people they support., following people to their homes, threatening them in restaurants ....yeah, liberals accidentally fell I to all of this.

Cesar Sayoc, Paul Hasson, James Alex Field. Death threats to politicians. Trump advocating violence towards his political enemies and the media. Unless it's Faux, natch.

Your boy is stirring up hatred and still Trump supporters condone the tactics.

If the Trumpist movement is not brought to heel, it doesn't take a genius to see there will be serious unrest. Do you really want that?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump didn’t want none of that on his property, don’t blame him

Trump seemingly had no problem selling condos to Russian mafia people, though.

Hmmm . . . I wonder why . . .

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They marked rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” So I’m guessing color had something to do with it.

I heard that fabrication from the defense side.

Trump was the defendant in the case, so you're saying he fabricated that he marked rental applications with "C" for colored?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Dems don't need Murdoch's tunnel-vision 'truth distorters' to cover them anyway. Fox News is the Murdoch News Network.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Even though Fox "News" is only pretending to be news, when in fact it's news entertainment, with no more actual value as news than the late night talk show hosts like Colbert

Get serious. Even CNN is better than Colbert.

This is interesting -

Tucker responds to the DNC barring Fox News in 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6E1PFt8-a4

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Fox is fake news anyhow.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Democrats bar Fox News from televising debates after reported Trump ties

I’d bar Fox too if they won’t secretly share the debate questions with Dems before the debate like the Clinton News Network does.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

SerranoToday 01:42 pm JSTEven though Fox "News" is only pretending to be news, when in fact it's news entertainment, with no more actual value as news than the late night talk show hosts like Colbert

Get serious. Even CNN is better than Colbert.

Xenophobic rabble-rousing ain't 'entertainment'! Since when is dehumanization, racism, sleaze, and outright lies 'entertainment'? Maybe to the sick sheep it is.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Of course they want to the sycophants from CNN et all that are de facto the proganda arm of the DNC.

Not that Fox is much better than rest of the alphabet soup, but it is certainly not worse.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Not that Fox is much better than rest of the alphabet soup, but it is certainly not worse.

Oh no, it’s way worse. They gave up on beinf an actual news station years ago. They’re news entertainment. Infinitely worse.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Get serious. Even CNN is better than Colbert.

Xenophobic rabble-rousing ain't 'entertainment'! Since when is dehumanization, racism, sleaze, and outright lies 'entertainment'? Maybe to the sick sheep it is.

The sick sheep who watch CNN?

Not that Fox is much better than rest of the alphabet soup, but it is certainly not worse.

Oh no, it’s way worse. They gave up on beinf an actual news station years ago. They’re news entertainment. Infinitely worse.

Pffft! Fox is the only mainstream news channel that has any kind of balance at all. You got your Juan Williams, you got your Chris Wallace and others who are NOT Trump fans.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fox “News” is the right-wing equivalent of the late night shows; Colbert, Kimmel etc.

Entertaining for viewers, but entertaininment, not news.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I do like reading Kenan Malik, Paul Mason and George Monbiot

I don't agree with much of anything Monbiot says. I think he's a bit of a nutter, actually. But I read him because he is one of the few journalists who is willing to question his beliefs, and who will say what he thinks so matter whose side it supports. Those are rare qualities in the media.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

starpunk - The Dems don't need Murdoch's tunnel-vision 'truth distorters' to cover them anyway.

Exactly. The Democrats wouldn't want the voters exposed to non-party-approved opinions. It makes me wonder what the Democrat Party is so afraid of? Must not want the voters to think for themselves. The voters might get confused if the Democrat Party didn't control the conversation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Please, Lord, please, let the broadcasters of the debates replace Trump with an empty chair a la Clint Eastwood’s missing Obama. The debates have been about posturing without much substance for some time anyway.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Please, Lord, please, let the broadcasters of the debates replace Trump with an empty chair a la Clint Eastwood’s missing Obama.

The chair would make the Democrat candidate look silly. Assuming it's not Tulsi, the only decent Democrat candidate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Vernon WattsMar. 7  08:10 am JST

And the facts are:

*Climate change is real -- yes, but *China and India are the biggest polluters

A convenient argument.

Facts:

2015 total carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (million metric tons) / 1st number

2015 per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons) / 2nd number

1 China / 9040.74 / 6.59

2 United States / 4997.50 / 15.53

3 India 2066.01 / 1.58

China, a massive exporter even to USA (industrial pollution relocation!) emission is still less than half of USA per capita.

USA CO2 emission is 10 times bigger than India per capita.

Green gas emission is not a country matter but a per capita matter. Everyone is responsible for the future of our planet earth.

These per capita facts are censored by Fox News.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Open Minded: per capita... per capita... per capita...

Yeah, well the U.S., having like one fifth the population of China, has some leeway. Not our fault China has way too many people. China emits more CO2 than the U.S. and Europe combined.

2018 started out with unusually cold weather in the U.S. that led to more demand for heating than expected, increasing the carbon dioxide output. High demand for natural gas in the winter raised its price and made burning coal and oil for electricity more competitive in comparison, leading to more emissions from electricity production. In addition, the US economy as a whole grew throughout 2018. So industry, from factories, steel mills, chemical plants, and the like are using more energy too.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Serrano

These are 2015 figures.

Are USA people of higher value than the rest of the planet to be allowed to emit that much more green house gases than the others?

Not mentioning that 20 years ago it was not 5-10 times more than China or India, it was 100 times more.

Almost half of the released of the green house gases have been done by USA since 1900. Just ONE country is responsible for the current global warming situation and still is doing nothing!

https://timeforchange.org/cumulative-co2-emissions-by-country

You will not see that on FOX and this is one of the reason why Dems boycott it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No surprise there. Of course they are not concernmed about their own ties with their favourite media outlets. The propaganda machine must be kept clean!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First, FOX is not news -- it is a very poor person's "entertainment". Second, there is no law that says Dems need to hold primaries in front of a station designed solely to dupe and control the public to begin with. Third, Republicans have zero ground to stand on with their complaints -- they would not hold primaries on even the most objective of what they call MSM. They are just angry because they are not going to get as many chances to frame questions from a standpoint that benefits conservatives; they would certainly never be objective in the first place. FOX should not even be allowed to cover anything that could remotely be called 'news'.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First, FOX is not news

Because you say so?

-- it is a very poor person's "entertainment".

120 million would disagree with that, try and convince them. Lol

Second, there is no law that says Dems need to hold primaries in front of a station designed solely to dupe and control the public to begin with. Third, Republicans have zero ground to stand on with their complaints

If the Democrats don’t want to reach a bigger audience and do what Hillary did, then that’s the mistake and the choice they will make. If they don’t want or need independents, fine by me. Forget one of the fastest growing demographics in the US.

-- they would not hold primaries on even the most objective of what they call MSM.

You mean like asking questions THEY don’t want to answer and the other networks will refuse to ask, yeah, sounds about right. Control the narrative.

They are just angry because they are not going to get as many chances to frame questions from a standpoint that benefits conservatives; they would certainly never be objective in the first place. FOX should not even be allowed to cover anything that could remotely be called 'news'.

No, they are not angry, they just think it’s stupid that the Democrats are that stupid...again and try this crap again and we’ve been down this road before. Anita Dünn tried to get FNC off the site and in the process, she and Obama got blown up. You want to be fair, you need to include everyone and you have FNC viewers that are on the sidelines with Trump, these persuadables should be the very crowd they want to convince or attract and those people want someone neutral like Bret Baier or Chris Wallace ask some tough questions and the Democrats don’t want any part of it. Hillary squandered great opportunity to visit Wisconsin, that cost her and now the Democrats are going to make the same mistake. Personally, I think it’s funny, but more power to them, shows the lack of transparency on their part.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Apparently the Democrat Party prefers to use media outlets that they control. Unfortunately for the Democrats, this action makes it appear that the Democrats are afraid they might be asked questions that they haven't prepared for.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apparently the Democrat Party prefers to use media outlets that they control. Unfortunately for the Democrats, this action makes it appear that the Democrats are afraid they might be asked questions that they haven't prepared for.

You defended Trump booting Acosta, when he was preferring to use media outlets he could control. Unfortunately for you, it made it appear that he was afraid they may be asking questions he didn't like, yet you defended him at that time. So how is that different from what the Democrats are doing now, which you are criticizing them for?

To be clear, I'm not making any judgement as to whether or not what they are doing is the right thing, I'm just asking you to clarify stances that are very different depending on whether the action is being done by Trump, or being someone else.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dems voters wont be laughing when AOC introduces NO PLANES

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland - You defended Trump booting Acosta,

"Acosta"?

Remember when Democrats bar Fox News from televising debates after reported Trump ties? It's obvious that the Democrat Party leadership is afraid their candidates will face tough, or un-prepared for, questions. And embarrass themselves. And embarrass the party. Of course, the voters might get the much deserved impression that while Democrat candidates can't face news media questions, their candidates will do much better when they have to face other world leaders. ;)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Remember when Democrats bar Fox News from televising debates after reported Trump ties? 

Something you defended when Trump did I it and are now criticizing when the DNC does it. How are your eyes not watering from the stench of your own hypocrisy?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dems voters wont be laughing when AOC introduces NO PLANES

That's a bit of an over simplification, though. Look closer:

overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail

Note the "as much as is technologically feasible" bit. And if parties fail to take climate change seriously, well... none of us will be laughing at the long term consequences to the planet.

I'm sure it will make for very interesting and nuanced debate, whichever networks broadcast it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In other words, a U.S. political party is trying to decide which media outlets are allowed (or not allowed) to cover the news.

Anyone who does not see the danger in that really needs to think deeply on it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I find it weird how the Trumpets defended Trump trying to ban CNN from presidential news conferences - the president being the leader of all Americans, while they freak out about an entertainment channel not being allowed in the DNC - those who only lead registered Democrats.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In other words, a U.S. political party is trying to decide which media outlets are allowed (or not allowed) to cover the news.

Like Trump and CNN, aye.

Anyone who does not see the danger in that really needs to think deeply on it.

Agreed. And the danger of letting Rupert Murdoch and friends to dictate to the PotUS on policy. That requires some deep delving into, as well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland - Something you defended when Trump did I it and are now criticizing when the DNC does it.

By their actions, it's obvious that the Democrat Party is afraid of free speech. I suspect that they are very upset when the voters are given all sides of a story. Democrat Party supporters, both foreign and domestic, probably think it's best not to confuse the voters with anything other than Democrat Party approved propaganda.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

By their actions, it's obvious that the Democrat Party is afraid of free speech.

So it's obvious that by his actions, Trump was afraid of free speech when he tried to kick out CNN. You criticize now, yet defended him them, why the hypocrisy?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites