O'Reilly Now Admits Terror Gets Votes? WTF? Fox News??

[BluesLegend]

I admit about once a week I want to punch a lying liberal right in the face. As for terror attacks in October, we have already had a series of terror attacks recently on Obama's watch. He and the lying filth MSM have done everything they can to deflect and ignore them. There for a few months every time Trump warned us and that idiot Obama tried to say Trump was crazy BAM within days we or someone were attacked and Obama looked like the moron he is.

You need to self-punch your face for the ridiculous bullshit you post.

Suggestion that Trump the candidate proposed ANYTHING that foretold or prevented even a single recent shoot up is nonsense, just like the idea that these things will stop just because Trump-the-shoot-fist-think-later-agitator is going to get elected.

Your just mad because Trump was right and Obama was wrong, again and again. Obama defends illegals and a young woman is gunned down by an illegal in a sanctuary city in California. Obama claims ISIS is contained and 100 plus people are gunned down by ISIS in France. Each time Trump had just warned America what an idiot Obama was on these issues. Here have a tissue

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree. That wasn't the point of my OP. I think liberal platforms are insane. I just worry about suggestive comments like this coming right out of the mouthpieces of Fox News; which everyone knows is the mouthpiece of the GOP.

Again, you are wrong.

FOX news is the mouth piece of the Neocons, and not the whole GOP, which is why so many of their talking heads like Shephard Smith are having a melt down.

I was watching that loser last week and he was interrupting a Republican pollster who was saying that Trump was rebounding in the national polls. As soon as Smith began saying that the national polls are stupid and meaningless, I knew that it was true that Trump was rebounding.

But have you considered, that if Clinton locks up the SCOTUS for the next century how many babies will be murdered in the womb because so many NEVER Trumpers like you undermined the GOP nominee?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The conservative world view and plan to get votes.

 

[AntonToo]

Your just mad because Trump was right and Obama was wrong, again and again. Obama defends illegals and a young woman is gunned down by an illegal in a sanctuary city in California. Obama claims ISIS is contained and 100 plus people are gunned down by ISIS in France. Each time Trump had just warned America what an idiot Obama was on these issues. Here have a tissue

Not mad at all - on the contrary, God bless Trump and they way he is demolishing the GOP while throwing a spotlight of embarrassment on the co-clown movement that supports him.

 

[Silhouette]

Oreilly was merely pointing out a fact. IF there is another terror attack, Trump benefits. He was not saying he hoped there would be, or anything of the sort.

He actually said if there was a domestic attack (pretty specific, dontcha think?), it would benefit the Trump campaign...which he also admits daily is lagging terribly. It was a TERRIBLE choice of wording for a narrative. And worse, another Fox talking head had just made a similar blunder just a day or two ago.

It would be terribly convenient for some Islamic terrorists to step up on cue and fulfill this horribly prophecy...Either Watters and O'Reilly would be psychic seers at that point, or they would have tied the neocons directly to timed-terrorist events...or it could all just be one big happy coincidence for "getting out the vote" for the GOP..

 

[Silhouette]

But have you considered, that if Clinton locks up the SCOTUS for the next century how many babies will be murdered in the womb because so many NEVER Trumpers like you undermined the GOP nominee?

She can't force those types of Justices down our throats without the approval of A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE. The Trump campaign is a loss, not because of never-Trumpers, but because a completely deranged/unhinged man is unpalatable on his own merits to anyone with eyes that see and a brain that can even minimally process incoming information and still stay alive.

I've been about saving the republican hold on the Senate now and have completely given up on the GOP candidate for the very reasons you cite. Clinton's uber liberal fascist judge picks for SCOTUS can't make it in if the Senate does not confirm them. It's the only hope we have left for conservative values to stay in place.

When you're up against insurmountable odds (Trumps chance at a win), you cut some losses and save what you can. That's what I'm all about these days. The GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING that the GOP's strategists are making is that THE MIDDLE VOTERS can actually PROCESS INFORMATION WITHOUT BEING TOLD HOW TO THINK. They are goats, not sheep. They're trying to herd them as if they are sheep and it won't work. Goats scatter to the tops of rocks so they can see you better individually; to know what their next move must be.

You have to appeal to goats in a very different way if you want them to come into your corral. For instance, goats like to not shop at Target Stores. Make them think you aren't a Target Store and they should come right on into that old corral and settle in...maybe for several generations to come.

 

[Silhouette]

Not mad at all - on the contrary, God bless Trump and they way he is demolishing the GOP while throwing a spotlight of embarrassment on the co-clown movement that supports him.

Trump and his come-lately defenders really are a godsend for the democratic party. Some last-minute convenience-violence, specifically domestically...I guess..? notwithstanding, Hillary's campaign can essentially get a pool lounge chair and order a glass of lemonade to sip.

 

[nat4900]

Oreilly was merely pointing out a fact. IF there is another terror attack, Trump benefits. He was not saying he hoped there would be, or anything of the sort.

You're either severely naive....or downright stupid. The tacit "wish" by ultra conservatives for a terror attack to give a remote "chance" to Trump comes through LOUD and CLEAR.
The "dog whistle" among conservatives is shrill.

 

[jillian]

The biggest concerns for the stupid ass left.

1. Man made global warming
2. He is a she and she is a he.
3. Bathrooms for dicks
4. The word "man."
5. Toy guns on top of cupcakes.
6. Hello kitty bubble guns.


Terrorism? What terrorism? Says the stupid moronic white guilt ignorant trust fund baby pothead.

it's the rightwnignuts who pop up and get all terrified when they pretend there's a terror alert. that's why baby bush had the terror alert raised to orange constantly before the 2004 election.

dum dum

 

[jillian]

The biggest concerns for the stupid ass left.

1. Man made global warming
2. He is a she and she is a he.
3. Bathrooms for dicks
4. The word "man."
5. Toy guns on top of cupcakes.
6. Hello kitty bubble guns.


Terrorism? What terrorism? Says the stupid moronic white guilt ignorant trust fund baby pothead.

You forgot the #1 issue, how much free shit are they going to get doled out to them.

*yawn*

thanks for the talking points, dearie.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Oreilly was merely pointing out a fact. IF there is another terror attack, Trump benefits. He was not saying he hoped there would be, or anything of the sort.

He actually said if there was a domestic attack (pretty specific, dontcha think?), it would benefit the Trump campaign...which he also admits daily is lagging terribly. It was a TERRIBLE choice of wording for a narrative. And worse, another Fox talking head had just made a similar blunder just a day or two ago.

It would be terribly convenient for some Islamic terrorists to step up on cue and fulfill this horribly prophecy...Either Watters and O'Reilly would be psychic seers at that point, or they would have tied the neocons directly to timed-terrorist events...or it could all just be one big happy coincidence for "getting out the vote" for the GOP..

What are you talking about? Is there ANYONE on this board, or on this planet, who doesnt realize that if we get attacked again Trump's numbers will go up? They were merely stasting the obvious.

 

[Silhouette]

What are you talking about? Is there ANYONE on this board, or on this planet, who doesnt realize that if we get attacked again Trump's numbers will go up? They were merely stasting the obvious.

Read the whole statement in context. I gave a partial quote but the whole statement in the middle of the two doesn't mollify the poor choice of words linking a domestic (again, very specific) terror attack between now and November helping Trump's struggling campaign. EXCEEDINGLY POOR CHOICE AND ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS.

If I have to spell out for you why that is, you are incapable of even basic comprehension. The link has been made now and Fox had better hope there isn't a September/October-surprise leg-up from terrorists (specifically on domestic soil remember) to "help get the vote out for Trump". Jesus H. Christ.

 

[Silhouette]

Just saying "If America is attacked again, Trump's numbers will go up" IS the problem with the words chosen!

 

[Siete]

ORANGE ALERT !!!!

fear sells

especially to yellow-back RW's.

 

[Silhouette]

ORANGE ALERT !!!!

fear sells

especially to yellow-back RW's.

Like I said...the terrorists seem amazingly complicit when it comes to the strategic timing.. We are told on the one hand that "terrorist love the liberals and want to see them in power." And at the same time we see a slew of terrorist attacks on the eve of pivotal elections that, as Watters and O'Reilly hinted at BENEFIT THE GOP in vote numbers "going up".

Odd, that. And like I said, I hope it's a coincidence. And for Watters and O'Reilly's sake, both of whom I enjoy their show normally, I hope none of these amazingly coincidental attacks happen before November. It's just such an unfortunate choice of words on behalf of both of them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fox is not far right.

 

[Fueri]

So stating the obvious, that these things could influence voters' decisions and therefore impact the election, is inciting.

Of course those things influence voters based on their perception of how a given candidate handles them. The same can be said of any other issue of high importance to given blocks of voters.

 

[Silhouette]

So stating the obvious, that these things could influence voters' decisions and therefore impact the election, is inciting.

Of course those things influence voters based on their perception of how a given candidate handles them. The same can be said of any other issue of high importance to given blocks of voters.

No, I didn't say it was "inciting". I said it was more like prophetic. And not in a good way.

 

[Fueri]

So stating the obvious, that these things could influence voters' decisions and therefore impact the election, is inciting.

Of course those things influence voters based on their perception of how a given candidate handles them. The same can be said of any other issue of high importance to given blocks of voters.

No, I didn't say it was "inciting". I said it was more like prophetic. And not in a good way.

Looking back at your OP and the title I don't see that word now either. Not sure where it came from then.

Apologies if I misquoted....

 

[Silhouette]

Looking back at your OP and the title I don't see that word now either. Not sure where it came from then.

Apologies if I misquoted....

Yeah, I didn't say Watters or O'Reilly were stirring up people to commit acts of terrorism. Just that they almost seemed hopeful/predictive it would happen to boost votes for Trump. "Prophetic"...and "not in a good way"...