Trump Dumps Fox News Debate and Here's Why

[hazlnut]

As Fox got wind of Trump considering dropping out of the debate they issued this statement to Mediaite:

"We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings."

That triggered his statement about being "toyed with" and subsequently dropping out.

He's such a ***** and liar.

 

[Flopper]

C-Span picked up a whole lot of new watchers tonight..permanently. They handled it very well. Like a news source should. And the after rally questions..whomever that gal was taking phone calls...she did great. Unbiased. Cool. Calm. Professional. I'm impressed with the good job they did. And I ain't the only one.

I've found C-Span good at providing factual unbiased programming which is great if that's what you're really looking for. However, most people want to be entertained, with commentary that supports their position.

I disagree. I think most folks was unbiased news reporting. If hen pecking was wanted, all folks have to do is go to The View.

If folks were primarily interested in unbiased new,Fox News would not have the highest TV news rating and the Rush Limbaugh Show would not be the most listened to radio show.

 

[Roudy]

What you neglect is Fox News is the only conservative voice among the major networks. The typical Trump supporter is in the age group of 45-65 and their primary source of new is TV and for conservatives, that means Fox News.

As Trump goes through the primary process and possibility a general election, he is going to need the very people, that is the establishment that he has waged a verbal battle with since his campaign began.

Few people seem to realize just how unpopularity Trump is with Democrats and independents. To overcome this, he's going to need a lot of allies that he just doesn't have. Antics to attract attention such as calling into news shows and asking to be put on the air, streams of outrageous tweets and facebook messages, and personal attacks are not going work in a general election. Exposure in the media is far less important in a general election than in a primary because the voters are already very familiar with the candidates. Voters are more concerned with issues than in primaries and they rely on the media to explain the candidates position.

Flopper they (Fox) need him more than he needs them. Fox News knows who butters their bread and CNN is just foaming at the mouth right now waiting to pounce. Trump has Fox by the balls and they both know it. In regards to Trumps unpopularity among Dems and Independents, you are sorely misjudging his crossover appeal.

How the hell did fox news ever survive before Donald Trump? Can we keep it real here please? CNN might need Trump, Fox? No they don't.

They survived because Americans devoured the propaganda and bullshit they were being fed. When Trump came around their base rallied around him only to tune in and see the bias BS Fox was pushing out. They were all left scratching their heads saying "WTF is going on here? No! We don't like Rubio! We don't want Bush!!" Fox is ******* tone deaf and millions see it. Yes, Fox needs Trump. Trump is viewers, and viewers are ratings, and ratings are money.....

Ratings have zero to do with a political debate. Ratings are for selling things.

Rump is a ratings magnet because he's a wacko, but a political debate is supposed to be about issues. If it isn't about issues, then it's worthless. Which makes it actually a positive thing that Rump won't be there to distract the issues away with his usual blusterfluff.

On the larger general point though, you are correct that Fox needs Rump (and any other controversy it can find) since at base it's not there to inform --- debates like this being the exception that proves the rule -- but to milk the consumer with scare stories.

But that's in the big picture, not really the instant case.

Political debates tell you what side of an issue a candidates is on but tell you very little about what they really plan to do about it. I've found debates are a good way to judge a candidates ability to express themselves in a logical coherent manner. However, most candidates use the debate platform to launch irrelevant attacks on their opponents as a diversion. I think Ran Paul does a better job of addressing issues, answering questions and avoiding diversions than any other candidates. Unfortunately, I don't agree with him.

Rand Paul is proof that the apple does not fall far from the tree.

 

[dannyboys]

C-Span picked up a whole lot of new watchers tonight..permanently. They handled it very well. Like a news source should. And the after rally questions..whomever that gal was taking phone calls...she did great. Unbiased. Cool. Calm. Professional. I'm impressed with the good job they did. And I ain't the only one.

I've found C-Span good at providing factual unbiased programming which is great if that's what you're really looking for. However, most people want to be entertained, with commentary that supports their position.

I disagree. I think most folks was unbiased news reporting. If hen pecking was wanted, all folks have to do is go to The View.

If folks were primarily interested in unbiased new,Fox News would not have the highest TV news rating and the Rush Limbaugh Show would not be the most listened to radio show.

Or millions and millions of viewers/listeners want honesty more than watching ******* Matthews and 'Madcow' distort the news. The reason these unfair and unbiased outlets can NEVER get beyond barely surviving is no one is buying their bullshit.

 

[Roudy]

I don't believe Americans want 4 more years of Obama's economic and foreign policy failures or worse through Hillary or Bernie, it defies common sense and self interest.

I would be too sure about that. His job approval ratings stands at 48% and 82% among democrats.

At this point in Bush's presidency, his approval ratings was 33%. Reagan was at 47%.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

The media has abdicated their constitutional duty and have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. What do you expect?

Considering all the biased reporting and subliminal leftist messages they propagate 24/7, it makes what Trump has achieved so far even more of a feat.

I must have missed that part of the constitution where it addresses the media or were you referring to the Trump constitution..

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

It is also why corporations have bought them all out.

Ever wonder about all the old conservative columnists whose columns are rarely ever seen any more, like Buchanan, Schlaffly, Paul Craig Roberts, Joseph Sobran and many others?

The corporations have effectively banned them from their outlets.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe Americans want 4 more years of Obama's economic and foreign policy failures or worse through Hillary or Bernie, it defies common sense and self interest.

I would be too sure about that. His job approval ratings stands at 48% and 82% among democrats.

At this point in Bush's presidency, his approval ratings was 33%. Reagan was at 47%.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

The media has abdicated their constitutional duty and have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. What do you expect?

Considering all the biased reporting and subliminal leftist messages they propagate 24/7, it makes what Trump has achieved so far even more of a feat.

I must have missed that part of the constitution where it addresses the media or were you referring to the Trump constitution..

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

Dafuck are you babbling about? The media has no "Constitutional duty".

 

[Pogo]

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

It is also why corporations have bought them all out.

Ever wonder about all the old conservative columnists whose columns are rarely ever seen any more, like Buchanan, Schlaffly, Paul Craig Roberts, Joseph Sobran and many others?

The corporations have effectively banned them from their outlets.

Yyyyyyyeah, because corporations are all about.... leftism.

Again -- think before posting.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yyyyyyyeah, because corporations are all about.... leftism.

Again -- think before posting.

International corporations have been funding extreme leftwing organizations for decades, for example the Ford Foundation.

Their motive should be apparent; destroy the US middle class by destroying its morals, its political unity and its ability to speak its voice in federal elections.

Thanks to dupes like you they have been wildly successful.

 

[Pogo]

Yyyyyyyeah, because corporations are all about.... leftism.

Again -- think before posting.

International corporations have been funding extreme leftwing organizations for decades, for example the Ford Foundation.

Their motive should be apparent; destroy the US middle class by destroying its morals, its political unity and its ability to speak its voice in federal elections.

Thanks to dupes like you they have been wildly successful.

The Ford Foundation: "leftist".

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yyyyyyyeah, because corporations are all about.... leftism.

Again -- think before posting.

International corporations have been funding extreme leftwing organizations for decades, for example the Ford Foundation.

Their motive should be apparent; destroy the US middle class by destroying its morals, its political unity and its ability to speak its voice in federal elections.

Thanks to dupes like you they have been wildly successful.

The Ford Foundation: "leftist".

Lol, you are just incredibly stupid and ignorant.

Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the 1970s, the foundation expanded into civil rights litigation, granting $18 million to civil rights litigation groups.[20] The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund was incorporated in 1967 with a US$2.2 million grant from the foundation.[20][21] In the same year, the foundation also funded the establishment of the Southwest Council of La Raza, the predecessor of the National Council of La Raza.[22] In 1972, the foundation provided a three-year US$1.2 million grant to the Native American Rights Fund.[20] The same year, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund opened with funding from numerous organizations, including the foundation.[20][23] In 1974, the foundation contributed funds to the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project[24] and the Latino Institute....
The foundation says: "Fulfilling the rights that belong to all people depends upon an active and engaged community and public officials and institutions committed to the inherent dignity and worth of every person." The foundation has seven initiatives under this issue:[40]

• Advancing Racial Justice and Minority Rights: goal is to "secure equal rights and greater opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples."
• Protecting Immigrant and Migrant Rights: goal is to "help national, state and local organizations secure and protect migrant rights and integrate them into a broader social justice agenda."
• Reforming Civil and Criminal Justice Systems: goal is to "ensure access for marginalized groups to a robust criminal justice community committed to fairness and equal protection under the law."
• Strengthening Human Rights Worldwide: goal is to "strengthen fresh voices to make the human rights movement more responsive to the needs of the poor and marginalized with a special emphasis on the Global South."
• Advancing Economic and Social Rights: goal is to "help people demand basic economic and social rights, and access remedies when those rights are violated."
• Protecting Women's Rights: goal is to "improve the lives and livelihoods of low-income women by strategically addressing inequality and discrimination."
• Reducing HIV/AIDS Discrimination and Exclusion: goal is to "protect and advance the rights of people affected by HIV/AIDS."

The foundation says: "Sexuality and the right to reproductive health are fundamental to the human experience; all women and men should be able to exercise these rights free from coercion and violence." The foundation has three initiatives under this issue:[42]

• Supporting Sexuality Research: goal is to "ensure evidence-based sexuality and reproductive health and rights research informs public policy and understanding."
• Promoting Reproductive Rights and the Right to Sexual Health: goal is to "develop national reproductive and sexual health policies and laws supported by regional and international standards."
• Youth Sexuality, Reproductive Health, and Rights: goal is to "advance policies and programs that ensure the improved sexual and reproductive health of marginalized young women."

In 2010 and 2011, the foundation granted a total of US$4.48 million to affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation around the world that advocate, among other things, legalization of abortion or provide abortion services.[11]In 2010, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was elected to the foundation's board of trustees.[43]
Ford Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Roudy]

I don't believe Americans want 4 more years of Obama's economic and foreign policy failures or worse through Hillary or Bernie, it defies common sense and self interest.

I would be too sure about that. His job approval ratings stands at 48% and 82% among democrats.

At this point in Bush's presidency, his approval ratings was 33%. Reagan was at 47%.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

The media has abdicated their constitutional duty and have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. What do you expect?

Considering all the biased reporting and subliminal leftist messages they propagate 24/7, it makes what Trump has achieved so far even more of a feat.

I must have missed that part of the constitution where it addresses the media or were you referring to the Trump constitution..

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

Dafuck are you babbling about? The media has no "Constitutional duty".

Then why are they protected? To do the bidding of a political party while lying to the people?

 

[Flopper]

I don't believe Americans want 4 more years of Obama's economic and foreign policy failures or worse through Hillary or Bernie, it defies common sense and self interest.

I would be too sure about that. His job approval ratings stands at 48% and 82% among democrats.

At this point in Bush's presidency, his approval ratings was 33%. Reagan was at 47%.

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

The media has abdicated their constitutional duty and have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. What do you expect?

Considering all the biased reporting and subliminal leftist messages they propagate 24/7, it makes what Trump has achieved so far even more of a feat.

I must have missed that part of the constitution where it addresses the media or were you referring to the Trump constitution..

It is the media's (press) job to be impartial and objective and report the truth. That's why they are the only group that is "protected" under the constitution.

NO! The founding fathers wanted absolute freedom of speech, not limited to any group, nor limited by the content of that speech. The media has the right to be as nonobjective and partial as they choose to be.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NO! The founding fathers wanted absolute freedom of speech, not limited to any group, nor limited by the content of that speech. The media has the right to be as nonobjective and partial as they choose to be.

The journalism profession should have better standards than that. IF a journalist cannot be objective they should lose their credentials and career by those who are trying to protect the integrity of journalism itself..