markodaly wrote: » Highest? Bush lost more in 2006.
Rjd2 wrote: » https://twitter.com/NickRiccardi/status/1061046501672022016 Pretty close to game over for Mc Sally in Arizona. With Florida looking a basketcase and the Dems finishing strongly in the house races, may not have been as good as result as Trump said it was a few days ago.
markodaly wrote: » So it's pure conjecture that the money is for bribes, OK so!
2 Scoops wrote: » Whatever you say..https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1050219760808591361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fentertainment%2Fmsnbc-star-chris-hayes-floats-conspiracy-theory-that-saudis-pay-trump-massive-bribes
mcmoustache wrote: » Their rentals of his properties are a matter of public record. As I said, you don't hand over brown envelopes with instructions anymore.
mcmoustache wrote: » If you're going with the extremes on either side you'll be very misinformed. That's OK if you keep it to yourself but if you repeat what you hear there in public, you'll be ridiculed. Choosing rightwing and leftwing disinformation as your news source is stupid.
mcmoustache wrote: » For all MSNBC's biases, they're in no way the left wing version of Fox. You're thinking of Jimmy Dore or some obscure commy disinfo organisation. MSNBC has no version of Hannity, Carlson, Pirro or the other lying "totally not journalists but "talent" people" that they have on. To say that they are equivalent shows an inability to distinguish reality from nonsense.
markodaly wrote: » It seems the other networks are trying to copy the Fox News model and are eating themselves alive and throwing out all their integrity while they were at it. Why do people take these 'journalists' seriously? Funnily enough, I stopped watching both ABC and MSNBC and started watching some live shows on youtube, TYT and the Dailywire for example. Both on different spectrums but at least they were a) open about it and the level of discourse was much superior and engaging. That is the future right there.
2 Scoops wrote: » If there's something to Trump accepting bribes from the Saudi's like Hayes alluded then I'll call it out too, but I haven't seen any hard evidence of that. ( Payments to Trump foundation or w/e it might be )
Harika wrote: » You would think with all this economy going he would not have lost the house, and from his twitter endorsements he only achieved to win 56%
2 Scoops wrote: » MSNBC is the leftwing version of Fox news. CNN used to be the most neutral cable station but for whatever reason in recent years they changed and went down a highly partisan path. ABC CBS aren't too bad but do lean liberal, NBC much more so. Fox is literally the only conservative "leaning" TV station if you exclude small operations like newsmax and OAN. They're killing the cable ratings as a result.https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/october-2018-ratings-fox-news-channel-averaged-more-viewers-than-cnn-and-msnbc-combined/382598 October 2018 Ratings: Fox News Channel Averaged More Total Viewers Than CNN and MSNBC Combined
prawnsambo wrote: » You do know that the loss of seats in Congress is the highest a Republican president has suffered in any midterm election since Watergate?
mcmoustache wrote: » I didn't dismiss the bribes to Clinton, disguised as speaking fees from Goldman Sachs or whatever. You must have me confused with someone else. And you know well that bribes aren't paid in bribes in a brown envelope with the quid pro quo spelled out in the receipt. Nobody does that. Instead, they do things like pay you speaking fees or rent your properties. It's the reason for the emoluments clause. Surely you're aware of this?
Rjd2 wrote: » https://twitter.com/NickRiccardi/status/1061046501672022016https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1061050201811701761 Pretty close to game over for Mc Sally in Arizona. With Florida looking a basketcase and the Dems finishing strongly in the house races, may not have been as good as result as Trump said it was a few days ago.
2 Scoops wrote: » Where's the proof he's accepting bribes? See the thing is like for example, there is actual factual documentation that the Clinton's received money ( bribes ) for speaking in Russia and their donations to the CF, you'll dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. But when Hayes alludes Trump is taking bribes from the Saudi's you'll try and justify it as if there's an element to truth to it. You can't separate your political bias at all.
mcmoustache wrote: » It's public information that they're renting his properties for no good reason. There are lawsuits and everything.
ClanofLams wrote: » They are extremely different.
2 Scoops wrote: » Fox has good neutral reporters too, Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Brett Baier etc. The opinion shows, Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham are hyper partisan but are they really that different than Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence. I dunno about that.
mcmoustache wrote: » If you think that that's comparable with Hannity (regularly, not a once off thing) we'll have to disagree. And that's fine but you won't fool anyone into thinking that MSNBC and FOX are comparable. FOX don't even hide it anymore and let's not forget Cohen's other client.
2 Scoops wrote: » You're really pushing me to quote videos of conspiracies from the likes of Maddow but it's going to draw the thread off topic. We won't agree so I won't reply about it anymore, but for all intents and purposes here's a snippet of her Niger conspiracy theory being called out even by hyper partisan outlets like Huffpo.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-niger-travel-ban_us_59ea060fe4b05b4f1c3ad52f "It was a vintage Rachel Maddow stemwinder. A deft, 25-minute weaving of carefully curated sound bites, screenshots of news reports, slick maps and graphics, all strung together to make the case that something fishy is afoot. It’s a style Maddow has perfected, and it has propelled her to the top of the ratings heap. There was just one problem. Maddow’s theory was so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map, let alone a phone call with an expert.Janet Malcolm of The New Yorker recently described Maddow’s show as “a piece of sleight of hand presented as a cable news show. It is TV entertainment at its finest. It permits liberals to enjoy themselves during what may be the most thoroughly unenjoyable time of their political lives.”
mcmoustache wrote: » Can't speak for lawrence because I don't like his style but Maddow and Hayes don't just make stuff up. Sure, Maddow once hyped up some tax returns from an uneventful year but she her target market doesn't like being misinformed. She and Hayes are nowhere near the scale of what Hannity, Dobbs, Pirro and Carlson spew and you know it.
mcmoustache wrote: » And as an aside, there are a lot of shows on MSNBS hosted by conservatives (Nichole Wallace for example). It's just that you've started to equate Trump with conservatism and think that anyone who opposes Him is a lib.
2 Scoops wrote: » That's your opinion. I've seen plenty of conspiracies theories floated on msnbc.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/11/msnbc_Again the danger is people online seem to be unable to tell what is happening in Florida and Arizona apart including Trump. hosts_theory_putin_masterminded_chemical_attack_to_distract_from_trump-russia_connection_it_is_perfect.html
