uuhh, why did you leave the "H" out, Bug?
Consider who I was talking to
uuhh, why did you leave the "H" out, Bug?
It was a Trump talking point. For many of his supporters, his words are gospel, and once heard there is no reason to doubt.
I honestly chuckled when I read that.
You see things differerently than a lot of folks, my friend. Just sayin'...
Fox "once the most balanced news reporting of any media out there".
Do you watch Fox News for news, or are you either listening to your preferred echo chamber, or letting the fact they have conservative guests and opinion on in the evenings affect your opinion of their news?
Many studies have shown Fox to be more balanced in their news reporting. As a for instance, a Harvard study of Trumps first 100 days, Fox was 52% negative, while most of the others were 90% negative. Which one is balanced?
From Forbes: "Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall."
Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.
These are not anomalies, it has been consistent over the years. So chuckle if you want but it is true...
MM
If his gospel is anything like what is discussed in the Christianity forum, I think you are dead wrong!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think any of the news services from the major outlets come anywhere close to being "fair and balanced."
As far as your 52%/90% negative figure, that doesn't indicate one being more balanced than the other. In fact, if the others were consistent at 90% and Fox was the lone outlier at 52%, that is more indicative avoidance of news than fully reporting on it... in theory, at least.
A lot of FNC anchors cannot stand the president. Like some of our own INGO nevertrumpers, they push their narative to the point of siding with the enemy.
They want to eliminate the Second Amendment, so there would be no means of America fighting back a tyrannical government. Why would you refer to them as anything else?
The law, properly passed and signed, says that foreign nationals may seek asylum in the United States regardless of their immigration status. Trump has tried to unilaterally change that to prevent anyone from seeking asylum in the United States.
When a foreign leader dictates the law, we tend to call that leader a dictator. Trump tried to dictate a change in the law on amnesty.
We don't want a president who acts like a dictator, no matter how much or little we agree with his policies.
I honestly chuckled when I read that.
Pelosi/Schumer talking points. Hmmm...
One could look at it another way and say the 90% tend to be more indicative of a reticence in reporting more positive news which in theory would support less balance.I don't think any of the news services from the major outlets come anywhere close to being "fair and balanced."
As far as your 52%/90% negative figure, that doesn't indicate one being more balanced than the other. In fact, if the others were consistent at 90% and Fox was the lone outlier at 52%, that is more indicative avoidance of news than fully reporting on it... in theory, at least.
For the record, I don't believe there's ANY relationship between Christianity and Trump, the man. In fact they are pretty much polar opposites.
Fox "once the most balanced news reporting of any media out there".
Do you watch Fox News for news, or are you either listening to your preferred echo chamber, or letting the fact they have conservative guests and opinion on in the evenings affect your opinion of their news?
Many studies have shown Fox to be more balanced in their news reporting. As a for instance, a Harvard study of Trumps first 100 days, Fox was 52% negative, while most of the others were 90% negative. Which one is balanced?
From Forbes: "Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall."
Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.
These are not anomalies, it has been consistent over the years. So chuckle if you want but it is true...
MM
Wait. I thought he's trying to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country pending their case. That's a lot narrower than how you stated it.
Immigration and Naturalization Act, section 212(f) says...
f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
I guess we'll see if that means what it says.
Also, see Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. Part of that says that if the "refugees" haven't yet set foot on our soil, they aren't protected....
Okay. I'm caught up now. Done post-whoring.
Let’s say Congress passed a law that says you must ignore jbombell’s posts because it runs counterintuitive to any “Trump is a dictator” meme.Damn. It's like I didn't even post this:
This is all established law already. From what I can see, well within the president's power.
As far as "let's say Congress passed a law blah blah blah... what if Congress specifically included a provision authorizing the President to suspend all those applications if he felt it necessary, for as long as he wanted? Would doing exactly that still be a violation of the law?