Newsmax: Trump losing support of FOX viewers

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Didn't offer an opinion, but I'm pretty sure he disagrees with Trump's claim that adultery isn't a sin, and that it's not necessary to ask God for forgiveness. But you're welcome to differ.

As a "Far-left liberal" you are unable/unwilling, to see any 'good' in Donald Trump's Presidency. I get that. It's called "Angry and Delusional." I believe the "delusion" comes from another source.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a "Far-left liberal"

Libertarian. Right wing nutcases often conflate them.

you are unable/unwilling, to see any 'good' in Donald Trump's Presidency.

In fact, when he began his presidency and started reneging on some of his crazier promises, I suggested that he might turn out to be better than anyone had a right to expect. And I praised his quick response when the Syrians decided to use poison gases. They figured with Obama gone, it was safe to do so again.

But this isn't about reality for you, is it?

It's called "Angry and Delusional."

I'm not sure that you're angry. Delusional, maybe so. Explain to me why you agree with Trump that adultery isn't a sin.

 

[rexlunae]

I've seen the Trump/Hitler comparison before and it befuddles me. The two are nothing alike.

They both rode to power stoking racist animus against marginalized groups. They both attacked the free press, accused them of lying. They both used anger and violence to achieve political ends. They both seemed to believe in the Big Lie. They both practiced nationalism along explicitly racialized lines, and they are/were both authoritarians, dismissive of civil rights. And the are both jingoistic warmongers. Has Trump started any wars or killed millions of people? Not yet. We will see what happens. But the rhetoric isn't encouraging.

Where are you seeing this huge difference?

 

[Rusha]

They both rode to power stoking racist animus against marginalized groups. They both attacked the free press, accused them of lying. They both used anger and violence to achieve political ends. They both seemed to believe in the Big Lie. They both practiced nationalism along explicitly racialized lines, and they are/were both authoritarians, dismissive of civil rights. And the are both jingoistic warmongers. Has Trump started any wars or killed millions of people? Not yet. We will see what happens. But the rhetoric isn't encouraging.

Where are you seeing this huge difference?

Though you didn't ask me, the *only* difference* I see between the two is their power and authority ...

 

[Gary K]

They both rode to power stoking racist animus against marginalized groups. They both attacked the free press, accused them of lying. They both used anger and violence to achieve political ends. They both seemed to believe in the Big Lie. They both practiced nationalism along explicitly racialized lines, and they are/were both authoritarians, dismissive of civil rights. And the are both jingoistic warmongers. Has Trump started any wars or killed millions of people? Not yet. We will see what happens. But the rhetoric isn't encouraging.

Where are you seeing this huge difference?

That's odd. I don't see the racism you see. I see a man who speaks his mind and lets the pc culture foam at the mouth if they want to. I'm not racist and I've been accused of it many times simply because I say what I see. Racism sucks, and I see far more institutionalized racism on the left than I do on the right. What is affirmative action other than pure racism disguised? You don't think it is? Really? You've never even thought out what affirmative action is? It's telling black people that, because of the color of their skins, they can't compete on an intellectual basis with a white man. That they have to be given special privileges to able to do the same thing a white man can do. How would you like to be told the only way you can successfully compete with a black man was if someone gave you a competitive advantage? How would you like to be thought of by your professors in college as so backward that they would give you an A for the work that a black man would be given a B for? How would you like to be placed in a position where you were bound to fail because you didn't have sufficient academic background to succeed at that level? Would you not be angry about it? How much would you like being passed along at a lower level of knowledge by academic institutions so that you would have a much greater chance of failing out in the real world than the student next to you who happened to have different color of skin? Yet that is exactly what affirmative action does to blacks. It's pure racism designed to hurt the black man disguised under a mass of lies and political propoganda. And when any conservative says affirmative action is not a good thing, if they're white the cries of racism drown out all other voices, and if the critic is black, the cries of Uncle Tom drown out all other voices. It's pure idiocy.

Also, what is the "Big Lie" that Trump supposedly rode to victory on? Sort of like Obama's "hope and change" lie? He brought nothing but devisiveness and stoked the fires of racism and paranoia among blacks. Here we had a black president preaching that blacks can't succeed in society. How much bigger a lie can you tell than that? A black man at the acme of power telling blacks that they can't ever be the equal of a white man. That blacks are powerless to succeed in this country. It is "The Big Lie".

And what has Trump done the most of while in office? He has reduced the power and influence of the federal government over the daily lives of the common man by reducing federal regulation on a scale that no president has done for at least 100 years. And this is the power mad individual that you claim is in the Oval Office? Funny how his actions say exactly the opposite of him as your acccusations do. And wasn't it under Obama that the BLM, FBI, and other alphabet soup law enforcement officers and federal prosecutors went deep into illegality to go after Cliven Bundy and his family for standing on their constitutional rights? There is your Nazism expressed in real life. There is your power mad administration. How about the other idiocy that came in under Obama? How about the laws that allow the cops to pull you over and if you're carrying a large sum of money take it away from you on suspicion of drug dealing because you're driving on the same interstate highway that drug dealers happen to use? The cops have no need to have any evidence other than the fact that you have money to take it away from you, legally, and keep it. Yeah, that's real liberty and freedom created under the Obama administration....

You are so mesmerized by the daily propoganda put out by mockingbird media that you can't even see reality.

 

[Lon]

They both rode to power stoking racist animus against marginalized groups. They both attacked the free press, accused them of lying. They both used anger and violence to achieve political ends.

Hold on...anger and violence? :nono: Those opposed to him certainly did. Did you forget the newspaper ads? It was a democrat!
(not that all democrats are bad)

They both seemed to believe in the Big Lie. They both practiced nationalism along explicitly racialized lines, and they are/were both authoritarians, dismissive of civil rights. And the are both jingoistic warmongers. Has Trump started any wars or killed millions of people?

Not yet. We will see what happens. But the rhetoric isn't encouraging.

Still a difference, and one you've posted so a genuine difference.

Where are you seeing this huge difference?

Hitler was insane. You could have said "they are both German" so I'm surprised (pleasantly) you didn't go there.
Hitler didn't do it for free either. I could keep going....

 

[The Barbarian]

Why is Trump losing FOX viewers? From the unabashedly right-wing National Review:
The news side is a different animal (which is probably why President Trump won’t sit down with news anchors Bret Baier or Chris Wallace). But even here it’s fair to say Fox doesn’t follow the path forged by other news organizations, which often appear so determined to hurt Trump that they fall for bogus stories, which my National Review colleague Rich Lowry calls, “too anti-Trump to check.” Whether that makes them biased toward Trump is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. That Hannity & Co. bend over backward to cast Trump in as favorable a light as possible really isn’t up for debate. But there’s a difference between favorable and helpful. Much of the opinion stuff essentially involves mirroring Trump’s Twitter feed, attacking Trump critics, and railing about the “rigged system,” “fake news,” and the “deep state.” It’s so much muchness, as the British say. The focus on the reality -show drama and cult-of-personality stuff is distracting from the more straightforward, if more boring, case for the White House. That may not be evident in the ratings, but it is in the polls. Trump has been hemorrhaging support among key demographics for months, despite a much improving economy, victory over ISIS, and mostly excellent judicial appointments. Which brings me to those poll numbers. Suffolk University and USA Today released a poll this week, which found that among people who trust Fox News the most, the president’s approval rating has been sinking. His favorability among Fox devotees in June was 90 percent. In October, it was 74 percent. This week? Fifty-eight percent. If that trend continues, he will be underwater with the Fox audience long before the 2018 midterms. You can cry “fake polls,” as Trump often does. But was the same poll fake in June? Or are the same trends that led to Trump’s historically abysmal approval ratings now reaching even the Fox faithful? From Virginia to Oklahoma to Alabama, establishment and anti-establishment GOP candidates alike have lost in large part because Democrats, Independents and a significant number of Republicans disapprove of Trump more than they approve of him. His pander-to-the-base approach still does wonders for Hannity & Co.’s ratings, but ratings aren’t votes.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ident-losing-fox-news-viewers-approval-rating

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Libertarian. Right wing nutcases often conflate them.



In fact, when he began his presidency and started reneging on some of his crazier promises, I suggested that he might turn out to be better than anyone had a right to expect. And I praised his quick response when the Syrians decided to use poison gases. They figured with Obama gone, it was safe to do so again.

But this isn't about reality for you, is it?



I'm not sure that you're angry. Delusional, maybe so. Explain to me why you agree with Trump that adultery isn't a sin.

How are Ya?

 

[rexlunae]

Hold on...anger and violence? :nono: Those opposed to him certainly did. Did you forget the newspaper ads? It was a democrat!
(not that all democrats are bad)

It was also things he said from his podium as he spoke.

Still a difference, and one you've posted so a genuine difference.

We're in year one. It took Hitler years to start making war and locking people up. We won't know if it's a difference for a while.

Hitler was insane.

That's neither true nor helpful. Just pejoratively dismissing one or the other (and there are certainly real questions about Trump's mental health) fails to describe their actual mental pathologies in any detail. You're dismissing thoughtlessly.

You could have said "they are both German" so I'm surprised (pleasantly) you didn't go there.

Doesn't seem relevant to me. Most Germans aren't like that.

Hitler didn't do it for free either.

Huh?

 

[Lon]

It was also things he said from his podium as he spoke.
We're in year one. It took Hitler years to start making war and locking people up. We won't know if it's a difference for a while.

Heard this a bit with Obama in office too. The polarization must be firing the fear :think: :idunno:

That's neither true nor helpful. Just pejoratively dismissing one or the other (and there are certainly real questions about Trump's mental health) fails to describe their actual mental pathologies in any detail. You're dismissing thoughtlessly.

:think: Was Hitler Insane?
I realized 'not helpful.' That's why I posted it, it doesn't help your theory at all. I agree.

Doesn't seem relevant to me. Most Germans aren't like that.

Well, you gave me one, so it is only fair to return the favor :e4e:

Huh?

What? Oh. Trump has waved his Presidential salary.

 

[rexlunae]

Heard this a bit with Obama in office too. The polarization must be firing the fear :think: :idunno:

The difference is, Trump's rhetoric suggests a real desire to make war, while Obama's suggested a desire to make peace. And Obama followed through with a number of initiatives to avoid war.

:think: Was Hitler Insane?
I realized 'not helpful.' That's why I posted it, it doesn't help your theory at all. I agree.

By "not helpful", what I meant is that it neither advances nor refutes anything. It just dismisses and minimized the conversation.

What? Oh. Trump has waved his Presidential salary.

That's not a good thing. We pay the president because he works for us. A president refusing their salary signals that they want to reverse that relationship, as if to say they're doing us a favor by serving.

I have no problem with a president donating their salary, which is what Trump is actually doing. What I do have a problem with is a president insisting that they be perceived as not taking working for us.

 

[Lon]

The difference is, Trump's rhetoric suggests a real desire to make war, while Obama's suggested a desire to make peace. And Obama followed through with a number of initiatives to avoid war.



By "not helpful", what I meant is that it neither advances nor refutes anything. It just dismisses and minimized the conversation.




That's not a good thing. We pay the president because he works for us. A president refusing their salary signals that they want to reverse that relationship, as if to say they're doing us a favor by serving.

I have no problem with a president donating their salary, which is what Trump is actually doing. What I do have a problem with is a president insisting that they be perceived as not taking working for us.

Just trying to help you not have your fears run away with you. Trump isn't the next Hitler. As a 'nation' we'd have to be under incredible internal turmoil before we'd ever get to overthrowing our own government and it won't matter who is in office at that point. Germany made its own bed. We'd have to do so as well. Polarization isn't a good way to start though...

 

[rexlunae]

Just trying to help you not have your fears run away with you. Trump isn't the next Hitler.

Thanks for that patronizing and fact-free reassurance, but I don't need it or want it. He's not the next Hitler, but he is Hitler-like. The comparison works. No one knows what he will do, but the echos of the Third Reich are alarming. The situation calls for vigilance and resistance. But please, if you don't (want to) see it, don't trouble yourself.

As a 'nation' we'd have to be under incredible internal turmoil before we'd ever get to overthrowing our own government and it won't matter who is in office at that point.

Hitler didn't overthrow the German government. He took control of it, first by winning the most powerful position in the government, and then disassembling the restraints on his power. That's why Trump attacks the courts and the press and the Constitution, and demands fawning loyalty from his supporters.

Germany made its own bed. We'd have to do so as well. Polarization isn't a good way to start though...

I can't do anything about polarization except try to talk to people outside my epistemological neighborhood. Hence my presence here.

 

[Rusha]

Thanks for that patronizing and fact-free reassurance, but I don't need it or want it. He's not the next Hitler, but he is Hitler-like. The comparison works. No one know what he will do, but the echos of the Third Reich are alarming. The situation calls for vigilance and resistance. But please, if you don't see it, don't trouble yourself.

Hitler didn't overthrow the German government. He took control of it, first by winning the most powerful position in the government, and then disassembling the restraints on his power. That's why Trump attacks the courts and the press and the Constitution, and demands fawning loyalty from his supporters.

I can't do anything about polarization except try to talk to people outside my epistemological neighborhood. Hence my presence here.

Exactly ... the very reason he relates to and gets along so well with the strong-man type dictators ... is because he wishes to be one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
What? Oh. Trump has waved his Presidential salary.

However, by being president his one victory was to get a whopping tax cut for himself and his friends. He'll make millions on that alone. So it's been very profitable for him.

 

[Lon]

Thanks for that patronizing and fact-free reassurance

:chuckle:

but I don't need it or want it. He's not the next Hitler, but he is Hitler-like.

lain: aren't we all.... :sigh:

The comparison works.

Better than compared to a Pomeranian I suppose, or Obama to a chimp

No one knows what he will do, but the echos of the Third Reich are alarming.

:think:

Thanks for that patronizing and fact-free reassurance, but I don't need it or want it. He's not the next Hitler

:think:

The situation calls for vigilance and resistance. But please, if you don't (want to) see it, don't trouble yourself.

:doh:

Thanks for that patronizing and fact-free reassurance but I don't need it or want it

:e4e:

Hitler didn't overthrow the German government. He took control of it, first by winning the most powerful position in the government, and then disassembling the restraints on his power. That's why Trump attacks the courts and the press and the Constitution, and demands fawning loyalty from his supporters.

It is part of the polarization. Liberals REALLY should pay attention to the divide THEY are making.

I can't do anything about polarization except try to talk to people outside my epistemological neighborhood. Hence my presence here.

By fostering the divide, Rex!?? :doh: Gotta give you points for trying anyway.

 

[rexlunae]

Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
What? Oh. Trump has waved his Presidential salary.

However, by being president his one victory was to get a whopping tax cut for himself and his friends. He'll make millions on that alone. So it's been very profitable for him.

Between that and the corrupt profits from emoluments and from encouraging foreign governments to support his businesses, the salary is a drop in the bucket.

 

[Lon]

Between that and the corrupt profits from emoluments and from encouraging foreign governments to support his businesses, the salary is a drop in the bucket.

This is just 'republican.' Again, the stirring of the fires for polarization. When it happens? Won't be my fault. I don't polarize regarding parties. When that happens "one of us isn't an American."

The pushing back thing? Always over the top as far as we are seeing. Doesn't help anything, just makes it that much more stark. If you aren't a solution, you are part of the problem. "Inept" would not realize that. Be 'ept.'

 

[The Barbarian]

This is just 'republican.' Again, the stirring of the fires for polarization.

It's relevant to the conversation when Trump announces that he's forgoing his salary. Turns out, the emoluments are worth a lot more than the salary. He'll make millions alone from the huge tax break he got for himself.

 

[Lon]

It's relevant to the conversation when Trump announces that he's forgoing his salary. Turns out, the emoluments are worth a lot more than the salary. He'll make millions alone from the huge tax break he got for himself.

Again, that IS Republican. How far are we going to push between polarization? The whole way? The polarization has already started. Women working? Democrats pushed it. Republican's made it a necessity now Inadvertently, a woman "CAN'T" stay home as an option any more Every action has an equal re-action, correct?