POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

No question, but we've never had a seventh grader in the office before, and that's why I said "catastrophic."

Why are you insulting 7th graders. They at least excel at telling you all the gray areas for why you shouldn't do something. This dude has no care for gray or any other color

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Hate watching/hate listening.

Howard Stern is famous for drawing attention to it. And a lot of shock jocks are well aware of the formula.

A casual listener will listen between commercial breaks. Maybe stick around for a second segment.

Fans will listen for an hour or just a bit more, just to find out what will be said next.

Haters will listen for multiple hours, just to find out what will be said next.

The old shock jock shtick of the 90's has crept into mainstream, and FOX News has (had?) created a network modeled after Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, and Mancow all rolled into one network and preaching the same message.

This does not apply to Fox News, people don't hate watch it for hours on end.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Graham coming out and telling the Pres to shut up, that he is his own worse enemy. Time to put the cones of shame back on little hands arms again.

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Ari FleischerVerified account @AriFleischer

Advice 4 POTUS: You have not been vindicated. U won't be unless Bob Mueller says so. Stop talking. You're heading into a giant perjury trap.

Fleischer, as we all know, is a giant liberal tool.

/s

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Going out on a limb are you Scoob? Who exactly would charge him?

Mueller. It's been 50/50 on various news outlets and analysis as to whether or not based on what we know now there has been obstruction of justice.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Ari FleischerVerified account @AriFleischer

Advice 4 POTUS: You have not been vindicated. U won't be unless Bob Mueller says so. Stop talking. You're heading into a giant perjury trap.

Fleischer, as we all know, is a giant liberal tool.

/s

Bit by bit, like flaking paint...

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

It was 9 months into Nixon's second term (and nearly a year and a half after the Watergate break-in) before more people thought Nixon should be removed from office than approved of the job he was doing. From that point until he was forced to resign those numbers never switched back around. But that was a president who was re-elected with true landslides on both the popular vote and the electoral college and began his second term with an approval rating of nearly 70% before continued events had the public turning on him.

But 2017 is not 1973. Now we are a more polarized electorate. Nixon supporters abandoned him as quick as they could scrape the Nixon/Agnew '72 bumper stickers off their cars. Yes, he had a core group of supporters and some key aids who apologize for him to this day (Kissinger, Buchanan) but everyday voters rarely even admitted they voted for him, let alone expressed a great deal of support. But in 2017 once you've staked out your political turf (and this is especially and almost universally true on the right) nothing short of your candidate having sex with your daughter, stealing your pick-up or mowing down your marijuana grow operation so he can sell his own weed will lead you to turning on him. And for those who want to point out that this is an equal opportunity disease I will remind you that, no it is not.

The proof of this was in the 2016 election. If people who tended to vote for someone because of the little "d" and that was all that mattered, Hillary would have won. But the people who do usually vote for the candidate with the little "d" did not all do that in 2016. Right or wrong (well of course they were wrong) they actually thought things through and voted some other way (or not at all) in 2016. Sure, it's ugly, sure I'm saying you're stupid and lacking in critical thinking skills. but the fact is more right wing voters are sheep than left wing voters. Anyone who doesn't see that simply does not want to. Or is too stupid to.

[MaizeRage]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Mueller. It's been 50/50 on various news outlets and analysis as to whether or not based on what we know now there has been obstruction of justice.

So these are all now verifiable facts:

1. Trump calls Comey into his office for a private meeting and asks that he drop investigations regarding him and his associates
2. Comey does not do so.
3. Shortly after, Comey is fired by Trump
4. Trump publicly says in a national TV interview: "And in fact, when I decided to just [fire Comey], I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."

Again, I'll ask: if that isn't it, what the hell would a 100% slam-dunk obstruction charge actually look like?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Again, I'll ask: if that isn't it, what the hell would a 100% slam-dunk obstruction charge actually look like?

I think it is but about half of Law Academia (on the TV shows) think it isn't and the other half thinks it is. It's been evenly split.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Hate watching/hate listening.

Howard Stern is famous for drawing attention to it. And a lot of shock jocks are well aware of the formula.

A casual listener will listen between commercial breaks. Maybe stick around for a second segment.

Fans will listen for an hour or just a bit more, just to find out what will be said next.

Haters will listen for multiple hours, just to find out what will be said next.

The old shock jock shtick of the 90's has crept into mainstream, and FOX News has (had?) created a network modeled after Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, and Mancow all rolled into one network and preaching the same message.

Yeah sorry that doesnt fly. Stern is entertainment people watch Faux for news.

And sorry if any liberals watch Fox then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can honestly say I ave never made the choice to watch that or listen to Hate Radio.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Mueller. It's been 50/50 on various news outlets and analysis as to whether or not based on what we know now there has been obstruction of justice.

And do these geniuses realize that Mueller is doing more than listening to Comey's testimony? He is...you know...investigating?

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

FOX News and hate radio is so predictable you don't even need to watch/listen. I understand the whole "know your enemy" aspect to it, but it isn't even necessary. If you have a good understanding of any particular news item you ought to be able to predict what they're going to say. Hell it's probably easier than predicting which song they're going to play on classic rock radio stations when they say "coming up after the break we've got Segar, The Pretenders, And Rush."

[ScoobyDoo]

And do these geniuses realize that Mueller is doing more than listening to Comey's testimony? He is...you know...investigating?

No. They're stupid. I said it was based on what "we" know. We can't go off futures that don't exist yet or may never materialize.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

The same Faux News that spent 3 days whining that Wonder Woman wasn't American enough? Why you watch that crap I will never know...

Same reason I lurk on FReep - it's irritaining.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

It was 9 months into Nixon's second term (and nearly a year and a half after the Watergate break-in) before more people thought Nixon should be removed from office than approved of the job he was doing. From that point until he was forced to resign those numbers never switched back around. But that was a president who was re-elected with true landslides on both the popular vote and the electoral college and began his second term with an approval rating of nearly 70% before continued events had the public turning on him.

But 2017 is not 1973. Now we are a more polarized electorate. Nixon supporters abandoned him as quick as they could scrape the Nixon/Agnew '72 bumper stickers off their cars. Yes, he had a core group of supporters and some key aids who apologize for him to this day (Kissinger, Buchanan) but everyday voters rarely even admitted they voted for him, let alone expressed a great deal of support. But in 2017 once you've staked out your political turf (and this is especially and almost universally true on the right) nothing short of your candidate having sex with your daughter, stealing your pick-up or mowing down your marijuana grow operation so he can sell his own weed will lead you to turning on him. And for those who want to point out that this is an equal opportunity disease I will remind you that, no it is not.

The proof of this was in the 2016 election. If people who tended to vote for someone because of the little "d" and that was all that mattered, Hillary would have won. But the people who do usually vote for the candidate with the little "d" did not all do that in 2016. Right or wrong (well of course they were wrong) they actually thought things through and voted some other way (or not at all) in 2016. Sure, it's ugly, sure I'm saying you're stupid and lacking in critical thinking skills. but the fact is more right wing voters are sheep than left wing voters. Anyone who doesn't see that simply does not want to. Or is too stupid to.

Nope. They would blame their daughter, tell you they must have forgotten they loaned the pick up to him and be thankful he showed them the weaknesses in their security around the weed field.