Aseahawkfan wrote:Nothing matters until the midterms. That decides everything. All this is time wasting until that occurs. Repubs hold the House or things get bad for Trump. It's pretty much that simple. I expect a lot of releases of information leading up to the midterms. Dems are going to be throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the midterm elections with key release of information to influence voters. Going to be a fun month or two.
idhawkman wrote:Well here's a quick update this Monday morning on a couple of topics.
1. Trade. Looks like the S. Korean deal is done and NAFTA is now going to be called USMCA (U.S. Mexico, Canada Association). Great breakthrough on this today. EU is still being worked and the Chinese have asked to negotiate but Pres. Trump says its too early to negotiate with China. India was told to lower their tarrifs and the Indian president said no one has ever asked him to do that before but that yes, they will be lowering them. Brazil same issue.
2. McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein Russia Gate will have significant developments this week after Trump meets with Rosenstein, the FISA warrants are released along with the McCabe notes and Orr 302s. This will get interesting very quickly so get yor popcorn ready.
3. Kavanaugh hearing and FBI investigation. News is reporting that an inside source says that the FBI investigation update to the background will be complete on Tuesday (tomorrow). This is going to throw the Dems into a frenzy and lots of tampering allegations will be forth coming.
Should be an awesome week for the Pres. and repubs.
RiverDog wrote:
The stuff you mentioned might not even make it to the classified ads section. It's not that riveting, unless you're one of these political geeks that spends their spare time watching CSpan. Most people are consumed with Kavanaugh, not with these relatively trivial events.
The big stories are the SCOTUS hearings and the upcoming midterm elections. Everything else pales in comparison.
idhawkman wrote:You may be right. I see a lot of coverage of the trade deal on the financial channels and it matters to some. I know Trump made it a big point at his rally last night in Tennessee though. He also made the Kavanaugh deal a big topic at the same rally though.
I don't doubt that the Russia thing has totally been wiped from the headlines finally after 2 years of this witch hunt. Probably because the media and the dems know there's no there, there and it doesn't fit their narrative now. With that said, the Chinese meddling in the mid terms hasn't gotten the play it should on the other news channels because it just bolsters Trump position on trade against China. At some point, they are going to come out with a story asking why Trump didn't make more of a deal about it though.
RiverDog wrote:The "witchhunt" (interesting how you constantly employ Trump's terminology) has quieted down as there hasn't been any indictments, trials, or plea deals in the past few weeks, and like everything else, it's getting pushed off the headlines and talk shows by the SCOTUS hearing. I seriously doubt that the Dems have forgotten about it or that Mueller will suddenly conclude that there's no there, there.
As far as the Chinese election meddling goes, there hasn't been a lot of evidence put forth so there's not a lot for the news outlets to report on, but even if there was, it would still take a backseat to the SCOTUS debate, at least for the time being.
idhawkman wrote:I get it, Kavanaugh allegedly throwing ice across a bar deserves so much more media than Chinese meddling in the mid terms, the largest trade deal being agreed to, the stock markets hitting all time highs, etc, etc, etc.
RiverDog wrote:It's not up to me, my friend. I'm simply stating a fact. It's not whether your favorite stories are newsworthy or not, it's that they're trumped (no pun intended) by stories that are sensational, ie having to do with sex or other such scandalous behavior, and right now, the SCOTUS confirmation is ripe with that kind of gossipy crapola. It's no different than the Clinton-Lewinsky escapades. It's what attracts listeners/readers that gets the press's attention. Advertising pays their bills, and the more readers/listeners they get, the more money they make.
idhawkman wrote:Yeah, I get it. Its all about the clicks which is why we can't trust our media anymore. INstead of reporting the news, they report only the sensational or what they can make look sensational. Pretty sad. Walter Kronkite must be rolling over in his grave.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Even you're not interested in unbiased political news. This is what you get when politics is more like sports. Pick a side and read those stories and views that support what you believe. Ignore the rest whether it is true or not. That's the state of affairs in politics. Get them votes any way you can is the way of it. If the Dems win the House upcoming, prepare for more "back to High School investigations" of personal behavior by both sides. It's going to get dirty.
idhawkman wrote:Yeah, I get it. Its all about the clicks which is why we can't trust our media anymore. INstead of reporting the news, they report only the sensational or what they can make look sensational. Pretty sad. Walter Kronkite must be rolling over in his grave.
RiverDog wrote:What you mentioned is a real phenomenon, and I'm very conscious of it. My mid day exercise routine at my club does not allow for a large variety of TV programming, so I'll intentionally watch Fox News one day and MSNBC the next. Both are at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
But most of my news I get off my start page of my browser or the news app on my tablet. It is biased in that it has an algorithm that follows what I click on so it will pick up on what kind of stories I like or websites I click on and show those first, so it sort of double backs on you, but it's a lot better than getting your news from an exclusive source like most people do.
RiverDog wrote:Not sure how much you could trust media of the past, either. If all you read in the 40's was "Stars and Stripes" or got your news from the movie time newsreels, do you think that you would have gotten an unbiased account of the news?
As I said in my above post, we have to force ourselves to get our news from multiple sources. I have a lot of friends that wrench in pain when I tell them that I'll occasionally watch Fox News, just as you would wrench in pain if I told you that I occasionally listen to NPR.
And by the way, if he had the ability to roll over in his grave, Walter "Cronkite" would have done a log roll had he seen how you spelled his last name. And here I thought that you were a fellow baby boomer.
idhawkman wrote:You are correct about the stars and stripes and even in the VietNam war there were censors white washing the news. The level it is at now is so much worse than that in my mind though. I have listened to NPR and I've also watched the nightly NBC, CBS etc news. I will not watch CNN at all though. What I find much worse than the bias in what they report is the total lack of major life impacting stories that they won't say a word on.
RiverDog wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many people on both sides of the political spectrum that, like you, swear off information sources as being opposite of their political compass as you have when you say you'll never watch CNN. Heck, often times news sources won't even cover events that do not shed a good light on their political cause.
idhawkman wrote:I couldn't turn off CNN during the first gulf war but they have gone way off the reservation in that they don't even try to hide their annomous toward the POTUS now. Also, they never had an opposing view on their show. E.g. you'll see every segment of Fox news have a Liberal, democrat strategist, etc to give their side of the topic. You just have a whole bunch of people on CNN trying to one up the last speaker's annomous without a counter point. That's not news, it is propaganda.
idhawkman wrote:I'd like to know the subject that Fox under reports.
By the way, the reason why CNN and MSNBC have ratings below the Cartoon network and below the house flipping shows it tells you that they have lost the confidence of the populace in reporting anything that looks like news but instead they only spread propaganda.
RiverDog wrote:I disagree. Fox is the lone ranger in the TV conservative news market. The liberal side of the spectrum has much more competition, like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and so on, so they have a much greater challenge than Fox.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm glad you were honest. Just about every other station is a stronger voice for Democratic left because the reporters, "experts", and hosts are mostly Democrats. Plenty of online sources for conservative news or information, but mainstream media is anywhere from center left to far left but Fox news. Fox news is middle to center right. The far right wingers are on the web and getting censored at this point, maybe rightly so for some of them.
idhawkman wrote:You are correct in saying the AM radio stations are dominated by conservative hosts but that's not because the Liberals didn't try. There were many that tried back in the 90s and even into the early 2000s but they couldn't attract a big enough audience with enough advertisers to stay relevant and eventually went down. Many say it was because the platform of personal destruction and division doesn't hold an audience. People want something to aspire to and the issues were not favoring the Liberals.
Yes, there's more left leaning main stream media and they have to compete for the audience but many times Fox News beats them all combined in the ratings. I used to have access to the reports when I had my radio show but I don't do that anymore and don't have those inside reports.
RiverDog wrote:
The difference in the success rate of conservative vs. liberal talk radio can be attributed more to demographics, not the content. Millennials, who tend to be more liberal, don't listen to radio nearly as much as baby boomers. Minorities, especially those in urban areas, don't, either. However, rural America listens to talk radio a lot, and of course, they are decidedly white and tend to be older.
Once again, you can attribute that to demographics more so than content. Women, whom are decidedly liberal, are more likely to watch programming like the morning talk shows (Today, Good Morning America, etc), and variety shows like The View, Ellen DeGeneres, or stations like Home and Garden, Flip or Flop (taken from my wife's viewing habits) than they are MSNBC or CNN. I can go into my gym and take a sampling of tv programming being watched on ellipticals, treadmills, and stationary bikes. Very few women are watching the two options for news commentary, MSNBC and Fox, yet most of the guys will be watching either news or sports. The Millenials will either be looking at something on their phones or have their own personal listening device on and usually don't watch the TV.
Aseahawkfan wrote:These parties are in the mud fighting it out.
burrrton wrote:*Party*, singular, is in the mud. They're dying to bait the other to join them so they both look like clownshoes. And nobody will be surprised if they join them.
idhawkman wrote:So now we are starting to see the full picture of what the FBI and DOJ tried to do to a duly elected president.
The top lawyer for the Clinton campaign was feeding false opposition research to the FBI's top lawyer to open up the Carter Page surveillance FISA warrant. 4 FBI and DOJ officials illegally signed off on the Warrant. When Trump won anyway they tried to set him up for invoking the 25th ammendment. The fricken rats are starting to turn on themselves and the full story is now coming out.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
No one likes to acknowledge how dirty the Clintons are, especially not the Dems. Where are you getting this information? You have a link.
idhawkman wrote:What I find appalling is that the current FBI director was in front of the Senate today and when Senator Rand Paul asked him if the President was being surveilled by the intel community Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling Congress' calls which again Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling the Press' calls which once again he refused to answer.
Regardless of which side you are on, this should send chills down your spine.
Aseahawkfan wrote:And usual for our presidents we're selling out our values to the Saudis. They tortured, murdered, and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi and we're not doing anything because oil and weapons sales. And this is what you consider acceptable for our nation Idhawkman. You'd support the torture, murder, and dismemberment of another human for oil and military interests. It is completely against the values of our nation and our Constitution, yet you support it even while Trump says he doesn't intend to do anything just like all the other presidents before him. Neither of these parties care.
15 of 19 Saudis part of 9/11. An oppressive theocratic monarchy that treat their people like trash. They murder a man like some kind of mob hit. We just shrug and go on like nothing happened. We shouldn't have anything to do with that nation, yet because of oil, Israel, and Iran we avoid talking too much about it and the American people continue plinking away on their phones.
If Trump took real action against Saudi Arabia, then I'd consider him something new in a good way. Just another shill for the Republican Party knee deep in the usual swamps. He didn't drain anything. He changed almost nothing. America is selling itself out for money letting these scum do whatever they want as long as they don't disrupt our oil and good times.
I despise Saudi Arabia's leaders and religious zealots. They are poisonous to this world and our nation. I hope someday we have president with some real balls and morals to do something about it.
idhawkman wrote:What a crock and you know it. To call me out before the investigation is over is just folly. You consider going off the handle and punishing them before knowing exactly what has happened and what they have done about it "American". You should actually be ashamed of yourself for this post in the first sentence alone. The rest of you post must be as inane as that first sentence but I won't read it after a comment and rush to judgement like that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests