OT: What is happening at Fox News?

[Pope Urban]

I watch Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow every night. Both are very polite and do not interrupt or talk over guests. I like Chris Hayes because he approaches issues from angles I hadn't thought of and Rachel often gives interesting deep historical background. If Rachel ever gets a fact wrong (which is rare) she will air it on a "Department of Corrections" segment.
If you watch them and not FoxNews you would know the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing, that the unemployment rate and deficit fell under Obama, that the stock market rose, that trickle-down economics doesn't work and that right wing terrorists have killed more Americans since 9/11 than Muslim terrorists have.
I obviously am not a Trump supporter. I consider him to be a disgusting asshole (pussygrabber) who routinely lies and cheats, and his history has been to screw anyone out of anything he could. I thought his bid for the presidency was mainly to enrich himself and he so far has done everything he could to reinforce that opinion. Those who know him best consider him a con artist. At some point I believe many who voted for him are going to feel just like the folks who were scammed into paying $32,000.00 for a fake real estate seminar.

 

[Toby Smart]

So you're the person who watches Rachel Maddow. I heard there was a search going on to find the one person who watches her show.

 

[IrishInOntario]

So you're the person who watches Rachel Maddow. I heard there was a search going on to find the one person who watches her show.

Like ratings matter in the grand scheme of things. O'Reilly and Hannity get their ratings from people who sit at home to watch them.... Older, predominantly white Americans, who tend to lean towards conservatism. Given that we have a huge populous of baby boomers who are retired and can sit at home and watch television, it shouldn't shock anyone that they tend to watch programs hosted by conservative, traditionalists, rather than than progressive , liberals... What would you expect people between 55-80 to watch? The young people in the U.S. that form a huge segment of the Democratic party are at school, work, raising fanilies,or are out enjoying social lives. The same is true of young Republicans of course. They're not watching news based politics and bolstering ratings.

People watch who and what they relate to.

 

[fenhead]

I think Hannity probably meant that he talked about them a lot on his shows, and believed he may have had some influence. That's not what "fake news" means.

As for Maddow, I've watched her all of about 5 minutes once. I found her repulsive.

BTW O'Reilly and Hannity destroy her in the TV ratings.

The claim was inflated way beyond " may have had some influence" though I understand your point.

As for your Maddow comment, you are obviously entitled to your preferences, though that sounds more like prejudices.

Finally, as to your ratings argument, that is hardly probative of the relative merit of their content. You, like Trump seem to equate popularity w/veracity or merit. If that were true we would never have invaded Iraq or Vietnam. Need I go on?

 

[fenhead]

Toby: see point 3 above.

 

[mbd11]

I watch Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow every night. Both are very polite and do not interrupt or talk over guests. I like Chris Hayes because he approaches issues from angles I hadn't thought of and Rachel often gives interesting deep historical background. If Rachel ever gets a fact wrong (which is rare) she will air it on a "Department of Corrections" segment.
If you watch them and not FoxNews you would know the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing, that the unemployment rate and deficit fell under Obama, that the stock market rose, that trickle-down economics doesn't work and that right wing terrorists have killed more Americans since 9/11 than Muslim terrorists have.
I obviously am not a Trump supporter. I consider him to be a disgusting asshole (pussygrabber) who routinely lies and cheats, and his history has been to screw anyone out of anything he could. I thought his bid for the presidency was mainly to enrich himself and he so far has done everything he could to reinforce that opinion. Those who know him best consider him a con artist. At some point I believe many who voted for him are going to feel just like the folks who were scammed into paying $32,000.00 for a fake real estate seminar.

The facts show a different story. Trump has a lot of friends, and most of them are supporting him, even some whose politics are usually liberal, like Geraldo Rivera and Piers Morgan.

 

[Toby Smart]

People watch who they can relate to? Apparently, no one is relating to Ms Maddow or her network. It's not a prejudice. It's plain fact as in ratings. You know, the thing that sponsors are interested in. The kind of thing that networks charge the sponsors. All based on ratings. She does lead the pack in the "best of the rest" category....aka.....anyone else NOT on Fox news. She got a boost from the election coverage and now it's back to the "D" League.

 

[fenhead]

Ontario: you've renewed my faith in Canadians as the most likable,fair minded people in North America

 

[DublinND]

I watch Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow every night. Both are very polite and do not interrupt or talk over guests. I like Chris Hayes because he approaches issues from angles I hadn't thought of and Rachel often gives interesting deep historical background. If Rachel ever gets a fact wrong (which is rare) she will air it on a "Department of Corrections" segment.
If you watch them and not FoxNews you would know the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing, that the unemployment rate and deficit fell under Obama, that the stock market rose, that trickle-down economics doesn't work and that right wing terrorists have killed more Americans since 9/11 than Muslim terrorists have.
I obviously am not a Trump supporter. I consider him to be a disgusting asshole (pussygrabber) who routinely lies and cheats, and his history has been to screw anyone out of anything he could. I thought his bid for the presidency was mainly to enrich himself and he so far has done everything he could to reinforce that opinion. Those who know him best consider him a con artist. At some point I believe many who voted for him are going to feel just like the folks who were scammed into paying $32,000.00 for a fake real estate seminar.

You naturally had NO qualms or misgivings about the serial and actual sexual exploitation of numerous woman / employees by Bill Clinton. But crude remarks by Trump are a bridge too far for you. The usual double standards by the left at work . Bill Clinton s predations were his personal business but Trump's vulgar comments secretly recorded and then released are disqualifying. You are appalled by Trump's business dealings bc it reeks of greed and dishonesty to you. But you in all likelihood have no similar outrage to the Clinton s corruption and greed exhibited in Haiti and thru the Clinton Foundation in whole.Pay to play! If you watched something other MSNBC and Chris Hayes you'd understand that the Clinton s directed aid to Haiti to their political cronies ie Hillary Clinton s brother. Who landed a sweet gold mine deal in Haiti out of the Clinton s philanthropy. While the needs of the suffering people of Haiti were a almost forgotten concern. They of course were " Right on the issues " so you gv them a free pass. I challenge your assertion that when proven wrong Maddow corrects the record. During the violence that occurred during a Trump rally in Chicago she ranted that a spirit of Nazicism was in the air and that Trump and his supporters were responsible for it. Her proof was the tape of violence at the event. Violence we later discovered was directly attributable to the DNC and it's operatives. See James O'Keefe video where the DNC hired hands admit directly that they were responsible for the instigation of the violence in Chicago and other events. As a coordinated campaign to show Trump supporters as violent in the media. It's on video tape. If you watched something other than CNN and MSNBC you might hv known that. It's illegal to incite violence or cause a riot. Don't you know..... Rachel Maddow never disavowed her previous charecterization of the Chicago event. Ad hominem attacks on her political opponents being her province. Dont presume my ignorance on the ACA and Obamacare being one in the same or other matters bc I don't subject myself to Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow. You can choose wilful ignorance and indoctrination nightly by imbibing the MSNBC group think doxology but I'll take a pass. As Denzel Washington said recently in an interview " if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you're misinformed '. The left used to be opposed to wars and the use of US military force to impose American foreign policy objectives . When perperatrated by Republican President s they were acts of aggression and US imperialism . During every day of Obama s 8 yrs in office the US military was in a state of war at some place in the world. First time in US history. Suddenly drone strikes and US led wars of " liberation" were fine with a President with a D bf his name.

 

[IrishInOntario]

People watch who they can relate to? Apparently, no one is relating to Ms Maddow or her network. It's not a prejudice. It's plain fact as in ratings. You know, the thing that sponsors are interested in. The kind of thing that networks charge the sponsors. All based on ratings. She does lead the pack in the "best of the rest" category....aka.....anyone else NOT on Fox news. She got a boost from the election coverage and now it's back to the "D" League.

No... The people that relate to Maddow are not at home watching television. I'll say it again, the young, progressives, who tend to be Democrats in the U.S. (look it up if you don't believe me, because according to you, stats don't lie) are not watching anybody. They are working. They are raising families. They are at school. He'll, many young people don't even watch TV anymore. Their generation would rather participate in social media or they watch things like Netflix.

Television is watched predominantly by older people, just like Twitter or Instagram is used predominantly by young people... Because it's what they relate to based on age.

So yes, older, predominantly white American people are going to watch guys like O'Reilly and Hannity, because they hold views that tend to be less progressive and more conservative... Something those viewers can relate to as they sit at home retired.

 

[ndnd]

I've been called many things and it doesn't surprise me in this time of intolerance. I'm just a moderate/conservative stating my views about Fox News. I'm not trying to bait anybody. Thank you for the compliment and have a bless day.

I will tell you this 45. I've lived through the cold war and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I watched the Civil Rights movement on television. I was called a black lover (only the really bad name) in 1961. I watched by brother beat the fire out of that 9th grader, who called me that name. I watched the protest over the Vietnam War. My brother walked into our house in his uniform covered in spit and other stains. I heard the chants of warmonger and baby killer by those who lacked the courage to enter that hell hole to fight for our country. Watergate, Iran hostages, three of my big heroes were assassinated for talking a stand against racism and segregation, and many other things in the last 63 years on this earth. I never thought I'd witness what I've seen over the last three months. It's gotten so bad that last week I change from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Americans won't talk to one another anymore with any civility because of the anger and ill will. I really fear that this country might explode from within and send this grand Republic into Anarchy.

 

[Granite45]

Older, predominantly white Americans, who tend to lean towards conservatism. ... What would you expect people between 55-80 to watch?

I do occasionally won about this demographic. So many of these people were the campus rebel-rousers in 1960s. How many of the conservative students of the 1950s just did not make much noise or did so many of these 60s students become so much more conservative? Polling of the 20 year old demographic in the 1960s does not seem to match the polling of the 60-70 year old demographic today.

I realize many folks become more conservative with age, but would so many yield on their personal principles?

 

[IrishInOntario]

Ontario: you've renewed my faith in Canadians as the most likable,fair minded people in North America

Don't give us too much credit. We have tons of problems ourselves and I certainly don't think I'm any smarter or more likeable that anybody else here... That said, I appreciate the kind words.

Canadians simply tend to be more politically neutral than Americans. The Canadian political spectrum (despite the fact that many Americans think we're all ultra leftist socialists) tends to be more umbrella like. Although various areas of our country try have their own regional political views (as anybody would) the deeply divisive politics in the U.S. don't exist here on the same scale.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, I would simply categorize (and I'm painting with a really broad brush here) a lot of Canadians as politically, fairly neutral, who base their political ties on individual topics. We're "fence sitters" of sorts, who pick and choose our direction based more on the topic at hand, rather than the political agenda / belief process of the party we tend to support.

America has much more extremism in it's politics, especially among the older generations. Many are "red" or "blue" through and through and therefore, they will likely deeply oppose the other side... I think you would find that in order to truly differentiate between the platforms of the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada, you'd have to know a fair bit about Canadians politics. You can explain major differences in the beliefs between Democrats and Republicans in about 5 minutes and somebody would have a decent understanding.

Just difference systems and different attitudes is all.

 

[tommika]

I think Hannity probably meant that he talked about them a lot on his shows, and believed he may have had some influence. That's not what "fake news" means.

As for Maddow, I've watched her all of about 5 minutes once. I found her repulsive.

BTW O'Reilly and Hannity destroy her in the TV ratings.

Am I the only one who prefers PBS for balanced news,they seem to have each side on any political discussion,EG Senators/Congressmen from both sides to give their point of view .

 

[IrishInOntario]

I do occasionally won about this demographic. So many of these people were the campus rebel-rousers in 1960s. How many of the conservative students of the 1950s just did not make much noise or did so many of these 60s students become so much more conservative? Polling of the 20 year old demographic in the 1960s does not seem to match the polling of the 60-70 year old demographic today.

I realize many folks become more conservative with age, but would so many yield on their personal principles?

This is a really good thought and one that I've often asked myself.... I think what's really important is that we really understand the context.

Just because somebody is Conservative and a traditionalist, it doesn't make them incapable of fighting for what's just. Those people in the 1950's and 1960's were fighting for things like Human Rights and Women's Rights. They were marching to end segregation in schools, for racial equality, for women to be treated fairly in the workplace. Major humanity topics, that often supersede political allegiance.

I think there is a huge stretch between suggesting that people get more conservative as they get older, and saying that people stop caring about the rights of other human beings. I don't think O'Reilly, or Hannity are monsters or that they are deeply vested racists or anything crazy like that. They have political views that tend to that happen to be Conservative and representative of the world they were brought up in, and they have a large audience of similarity aged people, who agree with that stance, who also happen to make up the "TV watching" demographic.

The young today have their own political agendas and are battling their generations social issues. I don't think it's necessarily fare of us to expect people who didn't grow up in a society in which the present issues were the topic of the day, to be vested in tackling said issues.

 

[mbd11]

No... The people that relate to Maddow are not at home watching television. I'll say it again, the young, progressives, who tend to be Democrats in the U.S. (look it up if you don't believe me, because according to you, stats don't lie) are not watching anybody. They are working. They are raising families. They are at school. He'll, many young people don't even watch TV anymore. Their generation would rather participate in social media or they watch things like Netflix.

Television is watched predominantly by older people, just like Twitter or Instagram is used predominantly by young people... Because it's what they relate to based on age.

So yes, older, predominantly white American people are going to watch guys like O'Reilly and Hannity, because they hold views that tend to be less progressive and more conservative... Something those viewers can relate to as they sit at home retired.

Well, I guess Trump got enough of a share of those younger voters to win the election, didn't he?

 

[mbd11]

I do occasionally won about this demographic. So many of these people were the campus rebel-rousers in 1960s. How many of the conservative students of the 1950s just did not make much noise or did so many of these 60s students become so much more conservative? Polling of the 20 year old demographic in the 1960s does not seem to match the polling of the 60-70 year old demographic today.

I realize many folks become more conservative with age, but would so many yield on their personal principles?

They become wiser with age.

 

[mbd11]

Am I the only one who prefers PBS for balanced news,they seem to have each side on any political discussion,EG Senators/Congressmen from both sides to give their point of view .

I listen to NPR news in the morning, and watch Fox News at night. I think ABC News is pretty good overall, too. I like to get my news from a wide variety of sources.

 

[DublinND]

Well, I guess Trump got enough of a share of those younger voters to win the election, didn't he?

Over 90% of the electoral counties in the country as well. Somehow it's represented as fringe, extreme and illegitimate.

 

[IrishInOntario]

Well, I guess Trump got enough of a share of those younger voters to win the election, didn't he?

Yep! That's democracy man. When did Trump even come up? The U.S. has a system in which presidents are decided based on electoral points, rather than popular vote... Mr. Trump won more electoral points and is your president. What's wrong guy with that? The country spoke, a huge number of young people chose not to vote and the election was democratically decided. I have no axe to grind there. Do you?

 

[mbd11]

Over 90% of the electoral counties in the country as well. Somehow it's represented as fringe, extreme and illegitimate.

Yeah, if you eliminated the big cities, Trump would've won in a landslide.

 

[mirer03]

You naturally had NO qualms or misgivings about the serial and actual sexual exploitation of numerous woman / employees by Bill Clinton. But crude remarks by Trump are a bridge too far for you. The usual double standards by the left at work . Bill Clinton s predations were his personal business but Trump's vulgar comments secretly recorded and then released are disqualifying. You are appalled by Trump's business dealings bc it reeks of greed and dishonesty to you. But you in all likelihood have no similar outrage to the Clinton s corruption and greed exhibited in Haiti and thru the Clinton Foundation in whole.Pay to play! If you watched something other MSNBC and Chris Hayes you'd understand that the Clinton s directed aid to Haiti to their political cronies ie Hillary Clinton s brother. Who landed a sweet gold mine deal in Haiti out of the Clinton s philanthropy. While the needs of the suffering people of Haiti were a almost forgotten concern. They of course were " Right on the issues " so you gv them a free pass. I challenge your assertion that when proven wrong Maddow corrects the record. During the violence that occurred during a Trump rally in Chicago she ranted that a spirit of Nazicism was in the air and that Trump and his supporters were responsible for it. Her proof was the tape of violence at the event. Violence we later discovered was directly attributable to the DNC and it's operatives. See James O'Keefe video where the DNC hired hands admit directly that they were responsible for the instigation of the violence in Chicago and other events. As a coordinated campaign to show Trump supporters as violent in the media. It's on video tape. If you watched something other than CNN and MSNBC you might hv known that. It's illegal to incite violence or cause a riot. Don't you know..... Rachel Maddow never disavowed her previous charecterization of the Chicago event. Ad hominem attacks on her political opponents being her province. Dont presume my ignorance on the ACA and Obamacare being one in the same or other matters bc I don't subject myself to Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow. You can choose wilful ignorance and indoctrination nightly by imbibing the MSNBC group think doxology but I'll take a pass. As Denzel Washington said recently in an interview " if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you're misinformed '. The left used to be opposed to wars and the use of US military force to impose American foreign policy objectives . When perperatrated by Republican President s they were acts of aggression and US imperialism . During every day of Obama s 8 yrs in office the US military was in a state of war at some place in the world. First time in US history. Suddenly drone strikes and US led wars of " liberation" were fine with a President with a D bf his name.

When the best argument you have is bringing up a president from two decades ago, it's obvious you know you have a bad argument. No Clinton is in office. A Trump is. His moves have displayed a willingness to do what he promised and an ignorance of process and law. His numerous misteps so far cannot be corrected complaining about Obamacare, or Clinton affairs. Yes he's conservative hurray. He's also destroying our diplomatic presence, enriching his own company, and let's face it had contact with Russia. If he was running against anyone not named Clinton even the most conservative would look at him and say wow what a shit show.

 

[Granite45]

Those people in the 1950's and 1960's were fighting for things like Human Rights and Women's Rights. They were marching to end segregation in schools, for racial equality, for women to be treated fairly in the workplace. Major humanity topics, that often supersede political allegiance.

And now, judging the portion voting for Trump, this same group seems to care less for the rights of Muslims. Considering Trump's comments about women, I am not sure Women's Rights has the same importance to this demographic.

 

[DublinND]

When the best argument you have is bringing up a president from two decades ago, it's obvious you know you have a bad argument. No Clinton is in office. A Trump is. His moves have displayed a willingness to do what he promised and an ignorance of process and law. His numerous misteps so far cannot be corrected complaining about Obamacare, or Clinton affairs. Yes he's conservative hurray. He's also destroying our diplomatic presence, enriching his own company, and let's face it had contact with Russia. If he was running against anyone not named Clinton even the most conservative would look at him and say wow what a shit show.

It's not a weak argument at

And now, judging the portion voting for Trump, this same group seems to care less for the rights of Muslims. Considering Trump's comments about women, I am not sure Women's Rights has the same importance to this demographic.

No he cares more for the rights of Americans ! Does that make him anti- Muslim? Oh I know how dare anyone point out the decades of terrorism perpetrated under sanction of the " religion of peace".

 

[rgc7]

Don't give us too much credit. We have tons of problems ourselves and I certainly don't think I'm any smarter or more likeable that anybody else here... That said, I appreciate the kind words.

Canadians simply tend to be more politically neutral than Americans. The Canadian political spectrum (despite the fact that many Americans think we're all ultra leftist socialists) tends to be more umbrella like. Although various areas of our country try have their own regional political views (as anybody would) the deeply divisive politics in the U.S. don't exist here on the same scale.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, I would simply categorize (and I'm painting with a really broad brush here) a lot of Canadians as politically, fairly neutral, who base their political ties on individual topics. We're "fence sitters" of sorts, who pick and choose our direction based more on the topic at hand, rather than the political agenda / belief process of the party we tend to support.

America has much more extremism in it's politics, especially among the older generations. Many are "red" or "blue" through and through and therefore, they will likely deeply oppose the other side... I think you would find that in order to truly differentiate between the platforms of the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada, you'd have to know a fair bit about Canadians politics. You can explain major differences in the beliefs between Democrats and Republicans in about 5 minutes and somebody would have a decent understanding.

Just difference systems and different attitudes is all.

Ontario,

I certainly do not know enough about Canadian politics to even begin to discuss it, and I agree that our country is certainly polarized.
It was not always that way, at least not during my lifetime. From my earliest memories, Americams
of both parties accepted and shared certain core values: God as our creator, Our Constitution, respect for our National Anthem, controlled immigration, respect for Our laws and law enforcement, and the obligation
to serve our country in times of war.
Other core values were individual freedom and responsibility ( They must go together ) . There were
no freebees ! Even during the Great Depression, the Home Relief Programs were temporary and just enough
to act as a bridge to gainful employment. No one wanted to be know as " A Home Relief Bum ".
Most of the political differences revolved around domestic ecconomic issues. It was believed that
the Republicans favored the wealthy and Corporations, while the Democrats favored the worker and Unions.
So while we battled Domestically, " Patriotism " was accepted by " All " and " Politics stopped at the waters edge. "
When I attended College there was no Right or Left ! We studied History, English, philosophy,
science, and math., We listened to all guest speakers and tried to evaluate their ideas as we so desired.
In short, it was a learning experience , not an indoctrination.
When I finished my foreign studies and travels, I took my first public school teacing job.
There was a morning prayer and the Pledge every morning.
Up until the later 60's , America had common values, since then those values have eroded to the point where we are two countries. We are a " House Divided ".

 

[IrishInOntario]

It's not a weak argument at

No he cares more for the rights of Americans ! Does that make him anti- Muslim? Oh I know how dare anyone point out the decades of terrorism perpetrated under sanction of the " religion of peace".

Just want to point out that there is nothing necessarily exclusive about being Muslim or being American. To say that he cares about the rights of Americans over the rights of foreigners is fare. To say that he cares about the rights of Americans over the rights of Muslims is is to blatantly infringe upon the constitutional rights held by Muslim Americans, the same rights shared by Christian Americans, Jewish Americans, Atheist Americans, etc, etc...

A small, but important issue. Muslim Americans need are legally protected by the Constitution like all other Americans. Foreigners, regardless of what religious beliefs, are not. Trump's mandate is to do what he feels is best for Americans, those people under the protection of constitutional law. You might not like it, but that's the job. Politics is the agreements and disagreements between people of how you best go about that.

 

[DublinND]

Ontario,

I certainly do not know enough about Canadian politics to even begin to discuss it, and I agree that our country is certainly polarized.
It was not always that way, at least not during my lifetime. From my earliest memories, Americams
of both parties accepted and shared certain core values: God as our creator, Our Constitution, respect for our National Anthem, controlled immigration, respect for Our laws and law enforcement, and the obligation
to serve our country in times of war.
Other core values were individual freedom and responsibility ( They must go together ) . There were
no freebees ! Even during the Great Depression, the Home Relief Programs were temporary and just enough
to act as a bridge to gainful employment. No one wanted to be know as " A Home Relief Bum ".
Most of the political differences revolved around domestic ecconomic issues. It was believed that
the Republicans favored the wealthy and Corporations, while the Democrats favored the worker and Unions.
So while we battled Domestically, " Patriotism " was accepted by " All " and " Politics stopped at the waters edge. "
When I attended College there was no Right or Left ! We studied History, English, philosophy,
science, and math., We listened to all guest speakers and tried to evaluate their ideas as we so desired.
In short, it was a learning experience , not an indoctrination.
When I finished my foreign studies and travels, I took my first public school teacing job.
There was a morning prayer and the Pledge every morning.
Up until the later 60's , America had common values, since then those values have eroded to the point where we are two countries. We are a " House Divided ".

The party out of power used to be labeled " the loyal opposition ". Sadly the Democratic party has totally abandoned that concept. I predict in the end it will ultimately blow up in their face politically . And there may ensue further gnashing of teeth and cognitive dissonance.

 

[rgc7]

What are " Womens rights " ? As far as I know women have the same rights as all other citizens ?
Unless of course " Womens rights " = Abortion which = killing a living being in the womb ?
As far as I know Rowe V Wade is the law of the land, so women even do have the right to
Abortion.
So I see no one trying to take away any rights from Women. " Womens rights " is an emotional
Strawman set up by Democrats to pretend that some how they are " Protecting " Women. Let,s at least be honest and call it what it is Abortion Rights !
Just curious how many women really want to abort their children ?

" Muslim rights " , If they are US citizens they have the same right and responsibilities as all other
US citizens. If they are not Citizens and are here in this country, they have whatever limited rights
that their Visas may give them.
If they are not here and not US citizens, they have ZERO rights !

 

[mbd11]

Just want to point out that there is nothing necessarily exclusive about being Muslim or being American. To say that he cares about the rights of Americans over the rights of foreigners is fare. To say that he cares about the rights of Americans over the rights of Muslims is is to blatantly infringe upon the constitutional rights held by Muslim Americans, the same rights shared by Christian Americans, Jewish Americans, Atheist Americans, etc, etc...

A small, but important issue. Muslim Americans need are legally protected by the Constitution like all other Americans. Foreigners, regardless of what religious beliefs, are not. Trump's mandate is to do what he feels is best for Americans, those people under the protection of constitutional law. You might not like it, but that's the job. Politics is the agreements and disagreements between people of how you best go about that.

None of Trump's policies so far have infringed upon the rights of Muslim-Americans. The travel ban is for foreign nationals. The President has the discretion under the law to issue travel visas to whomever he sees fit.

Even Alan Dershowitz was saying on TV that he thinks the court order staying the ban will not hold up if it goes to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is known as being extremely liberal.

 

[DublinND]

And not disimilar to restrictions that Obama placed at one time. Same 7 predominantly Muslim nations identified. Nor different from immigration restrictions placed by Muslim counties like Qatar , Oman and Saudi Arabia on populations from same countries identified in Trump's exec ordee. Saudi Arabia who to date has accepted little to no Muslim refugees into their country. Are they anti-muslim as well?

 

[Quest4Twelve]

It goes both ways and you know it. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are completely ridiculous at times in their arguments and utterly intolerable of seemingly anything progressive or "left".... They are all cut from the same cloth, with massive agendas that would seek to benefit the right or the left.

Add Tucker Carlson to the list. They guy's show entails getting in arguments with his guests and laughing when he can't counter their point. I'm not quite sure what his show is all about. Yes I hate watch Fox so please don't tell me I don't what I'm talking about. There is a reason Tucker was booted off Crossfire on CNN. He sucks and so does the fluffers on Fox and Friends.

 

[IrishInOntario]

Ontario,

I certainly do not know enough about Canadian politics to even begin to discuss it, and I agree that our country is certainly polarized.
It was not always that way, at least not during my lifetime. From my earliest memories, Americams
of both parties accepted and shared certain core values: God as our creator, Our Constitution, respect for our National Anthem, controlled immigration, respect for Our laws and law enforcement, and the obligation
to serve our country in times of war.
Other core values were individual freedom and responsibility ( They must go together ) . There were
no freebees ! Even during the Great Depression, the Home Relief Programs were temporary and just enough
to act as a bridge to gainful employment. No one wanted to be know as " A Home Relief Bum ".
Most of the political differences revolved around domestic ecconomic issues. It was believed that
the Republicans favored the wealthy and Corporations, while the Democrats favored the worker and Unions.
So while we battled Domestically, " Patriotism " was accepted by " All " and " Politics stopped at the waters edge. "
When I attended College there was no Right or Left ! We studied History, English, philosophy,
science, and math., We listened to all guest speakers and tried to evaluate their ideas as we so desired.
In short, it was a learning experience , not an indoctrination.
When I finished my foreign studies and travels, I took my first public school teacing job.
There was a morning prayer and the Pledge every morning.
Up until the later 60's , America had common values, since then those values have eroded to the point where we are two countries. We are a " House Divided ".

Great points.

None of Trump's policies so far have infringed upon the rights of Muslim-Americans. The travel ban is for foreign nationals. The President has the discretion under the law to issue travel visas to whomever he sees fit.

Even Alan Dershowitz was saying on TV that he thinks the court order staying the ban will not hold up if it goes to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is known as being extremely liberal.

Not arguing that one bit. Just pointing out that the language used in the first post I referenced was lawfully incorrect. I'm not suggesting Trump has done anything wrong or lawfully unconstitutional.

 

[DublinND]

Great points.


Not arguing that one bit. Just pointing out that the language used in the first post I referenced was lawfully incorrect. I'm not suggesting Trump has done anything wrong or lawfully unconstitutional.

Or nothing other prior American presidents have not done.

 

[DublinND]

Add Tucker Carlson to the list. They guy's show entails getting in arguments with his guests and laughing when he can't counter their point. I'm not quite sure what his show is all about. Yes I hate watch Fox so please don't tell me I don't what I'm talking about. There is a reason Tucker was booted off Crossfire on CNN. He sucks and so does the fluffers on Fox and Friends.

That's why his ratings are thru the roof and is crushing CNN and MSNBC in same time slot. To each their own. Stick with CNN and MSNBC they're the bomb!

 

[NIN Irish]

Yeah, if you eliminated the big cities, Trump would've won in a landslide.

Or if you eliminated the small towns, Clinton would've won in a landslide.

 

[DublinND]

Or if you eliminated the small towns, Clinton would've won in a landslide.

Good point... yes if you eliminated 90% of the counties in the USA ( " small towns ) and made a national election akin to a mayoral contest in LA, NYC and San Francisco she would have won in a landslide. Oh the unfairness of it!

 

[mirer03]

It's not a weak argument at

No he cares more for the rights of Americans ! Does that make him anti- Muslim? Oh I know how dare anyone point out the decades of terrorism perpetrated under sanction of the " religion of peace".

Don't be a sheep. His ban is against the countries that did not perpetrate 9/11... Saudi Arabia and UAE had the majority of the terrorists that attacked US soil. Banning the other countries is like taking your shoes off in the airport. It makes part of the population feel better while accomplishing next to nothing.

 

[NIN Irish]

Good point... yes if you eliminated 90% of the counties in the USA ( " small towns ) and made a national election akin to a mayoral contest in LA, NYC and San Francisco she would have won in a landslide. Oh the unfairness of it!

It is where the majority of the population (62.7%) live in the U.S. despite only 3.5 percent of land area.

Anyway, my post was in response to an earlier post about trump winning in a landslide, if you eliminated the big cities. So yes, if you eliminated rural counties she wins in a landslide.

 

[rgc7]

It is where the majority of the population (62.7%) live in the U.S. despite only 3.5 percent of land area.

Anyway, my post was in response to an earlier post about trump winning in a landslide, if you eliminated the big cities. So yes, if you eliminated rural counties she wins in a landslide.

And if my Aunt had B ...., she'de be my Uncle ! Trump won the Electorial College Vote and he is the President of the United States ! What if's make no difference ! Popular vote makes no difference !
So why waste time on what if's ?
The Founding Fathers set up the Electorial College so the larger and more heavillly populated states
would not dominate smaller less populated states. That was a compromise so that smaller states
gave up some of their soverenty to join the Union that became the United States.

 

[DublinND]

And if my Aunt had B ...., she'de be my Uncle ! Trump won the Electorial College Vote and he is the President of the United States ! What if's make no difference ! Popular vote makes no difference !
So why waste time on what if's ?
The Founding Fathers set up the Electorial College so the larger and more heavillly populated states
would not dominate smaller less populated states. That was a compromise so that smaller states
gave up some of their soverenty to join the Union that became the United States.

Well put! Crying about the rules to the game after losing the game smacks of sour grapes! It s called the United States of America for a reason. We've been a representative republic and not a pure democracy with direct vote for well over 200 yrs. It appears that has held this country in good stead as the most successful system of self governance in human history. That is evidently until Hillary Clinton lost a presidential election. What incentive would there be for states like Iowa , Nebraska et AL to remain in the union if their interests were totally unrepresented bc the parochial and political interests of large states like California and NY solely dictated govt policy .

 

[rgc7]

Well put! Crying about the rules to the game after losing the game smacks of sour grapes! It s called the United States of America for a reason. We've been a representative republic and not a pure democracy with direct vote for well over 200 yrs. It appears that has held this country in good stead as the most successful system of self governance in human history. That is evidently until Hillary Clinton lost a presidential election. What incentive would there be for states like Iowa , Nebraska et AL to remain in the union if their interests were totally unrepresented bc the parochial and political interests of large states like California and NY solely dictated govt policy .

Exactly Dublin,

The Electorial College as well as the Two Senators for each state regardless of size or population
were part of the Compromises that were necessary to pull all the states and people of those states in the
United States.
Next, the Liberals will be crying how unfair it is that the Senate must have more Senators from Large States ?
Wow, now we can have another What if game that can be played in Safe Places !