Fox News

[_Maksutov]

I read Fox News.

It helps understand how a someone like Trump could win the presidency and gives me a better understanding of why people can continue to defend the likes of Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard.

I check Drudge and Breitbart every day. It's like studying agitprop.

[_subgenius]

Because its not that big of a story to their viewers...and that is a whole lot of viewers.

The abject stupidity of FOX Viewers is really beside the point.

I agree, your opinion of FOX viewers is irrelevant beside the point.

The fact is this is a huge deal to anyone who gives half a damn about the integrity of this country.

It's only huge if you believe everything the DNC says is true and if you also believe selling 20% of US uranium was a good political move.

It is unprecedented.

I disagree, it is likely that the DNC has tainted evidence and unleashed a liberal media propaganda program before this one.

It has Republican lawmakers lambasting Trump for the first time ever.

Well, that's not true. Many Republicans have left, or are leaving, office because of Trump. And some have lambasted Trump and still gotten his support and gotten re-nominated (see also Alabama news today).

It has former Republicans coming out to say they're now going to vote Democrat.

Yes, and Rosie, Whoopi, and Lena were going to move to Canada.

Hell even FOX Business channel is drilling him a new colon.

Yawn, this to shall pass.
#bluewave

You and your ilk have no problems "reporting" on black people disrespecting the flag for months on end, but you don't have time ti discuss the President betraying the country on national television while cozying up to Putin for more than 20 minutes because, well, that isn't the narrative you're driving at.

I did not see any betrayal of our nation during that press conference, I actually saw a consistent position with no surprises, but perhaps you have a different opinion - free country ya know.

[_canpakes]

It's only huge if you believe everything the DNC says is true and if you also believe selling 20% of US uranium was a good political move.

Lol. Here we go again, with the BS talking points from Fox and Friends.

Seriously, subs, you have been doing a first-rate job of exposing how much of a manipulated tool you are, with your recent spate of alternative-reality conspiratorial claims.

Maybe you should pay more attention to what US law enforcement and intel have to say about these things. You know, the folks that Trump daily throws under the bus in his frantic attempts to assert no ‘colusion’.

(While we’re at it, we should find a tutor in English as a First Language for the President ...)

[_subgenius]

Maybe you should pay more attention to what US law enforcement and intel have to say about these things.

Yes, pay attention indeed. Since you are holding your opinion on the matter in such high regard, perhaps you could elevate mine. How about you let us all know what it is that the "intelligence" is saying...but start out slow for me, please. Perhaps just begin at the begining... with the evidence ...you're still a big fan of evidence, correct? How about you share with me some insight as to the basis for what you have been "paying attention" to? You seem great at echoing whatever the hair-fire phrase du jour is - but it would be helpful to know if you are just taking things on faith or if you've actually been paying attention to the evidence.

Let's start easy and simple...what and how do you know what happened with DNC email servers during 2016 campaign?

[_Kevin Graham]

It's only huge if you believe everything the DNC says is true and if you also believe selling 20% of US uranium was a good political move.

I'm not relying on the DNC, I'm relying on facts that have been laid out already. You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that the DNC "refused to hand over servers." You've been educated on this point several times now but keep dismissing the evidence from folks in the FBI who would actually know about these things:

"In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure],” Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI’s New York office, told The Hill. “It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient.”

What pray tell, do you think the DNC could have "done" to the server without the FBI knowing? And more importantly, why? This is the same conspiracy minded nonsense that drove the "deleted emails" hysteria.

And your uranium comment proves you're just relying on the worst "information" on the web. Easily debunked already. Like months ago.

I disagree, it is likely that the DNC has tainted evidence and unleashed a liberal media propaganda program before this one.

Since this dumb notion is based on no evidence whatsoever, why is this "likely"?

Well, that's not true. Many Republicans have left, or are leaving, office because of Trump. And some have lambasted Trump and still gotten his support and gotten re-nominated (see also Alabama news today).

It is absolutely true. From something more encompassing than "Alabama News": GOP lambasts Trump over performance in Helsinki

Yes, and Rosie, Whoopi, and Lena were going to move to Canada.

James Comey, Longtime Republican, Tells ‘All Who Care’ To Vote Democrat In November

Yawn, this to shall pass.

Everything shall pass, but the fact that Trump's own network is criticizing him is significant. It proves this isn't just some Liberal hair-fire issue.

I did not see any betrayal of our nation during that press conference, I actually saw a consistent position with no surprises, but perhaps you have a different opinion - free country ya know.

Trump was asked point blank two specific questions:

1. "My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe"?
2. "My second question is would you now with the whole world watching tell President Putin — would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again"?

Trump responded by refusing to answer the questions directly. Instead, he asked four questions and then flattered Putin for giving such a "strong and powerful" testimony of innocence. He also flat out lied by saying Dan Coats "thinks" it is Russia. No, Dan Coats said he knows with absolute certainty it was Russia. He then goes on babbling about HC's emails and a missing server that is neither missing nor a server.

Roughly 27 hours later after he realizes the country is aghast with what he said by taking the side of Putin over his own intelligence agencies, and so his staff forced him to read a scripted "explanation" that makes sense only if you live on planet naïve.

But he sabotaged his own attempt at damage control by basically rejecting the Intelligence agency's assessment when he went off script to say "It could have been others." No, that's not what the 17 intelligence agencies have said. That's what Trump keep saying which contradicts this.

Photo images of his script shows that he crossed out one remark that warns Russia that there will be consequences for attacking us like this. And of course, this is "consistent" since he refused to answer question #2. He had nothing but praise for the ruthless murdering dictator who stood to his left the entire time and he threw the US intelligence agencies under the bus. That's treasonous and unprecedented for a President of the United States. That's why so many people, Republicans included, are so upset about this. As far as I can tell the only people who aren't are the extreme idiots on talk radio, which should always be expected. But like I said before, even FOX News has a few hosts who are fed up with his stupidity.

Shep Smith: Trump White House has a 'say one thing, change it later' pattern

Fox News anchors turn on Trump after his disastrous Putin meeting

"No negotiation is worth throwing your own people and country under the bus." - Abby Huntsman

Neil Cavuto of Fox Business calls Trump's press conference "disgusting", "That sets us back a lot."

[_canpakes]

Maybe you should pay more attention to what US law enforcement and intel have to say about these things.

Yes, pay attention indeed. Since you are holding your opinion on the matter in such high regard, perhaps you could elevate mine. How about you let us all know what it is that the "intelligence" is saying...but start out slow for me, please. Perhaps just begin at the begining... with the evidence ...you're still a big fan of evidence, correct? How about you share with me some insight as to the basis for what you have been "paying attention" to? You seem great at echoing whatever the hair-fire phrase du jour is - but it would be helpful to know if you are just taking things on faith or if you've actually been paying attention to the evidence.

Let's start easy and simple...what and how do you know what happened with DNC email servers during 2016 campaign?

Lol, you’re not even paying attention to single posts. How on earth would you expect to take in anything more complex?

Please reread my post and note that I’m referring directly and specifically to your own new distraction, that being your conspiratorial hair fire BS story about U1.

You’ve already repeatedly been given information about the DNC server situation; your refusal to self-correct your own bad propaganda does not obligate a repeat of those facts by anyone. But go ahead and keep ranting on about, “where are the servers?!?”. It sounds cute.

[_subgenius]

"In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure],”

(Ok, let us just ignore your inept argument that the FBI does not want to collect evidence for themselves because they claim they are just really bad at collecting evidence).

So if we assume your claim is factual, this is the 1 out of 10 cases where the FBI did ask for access...and they asked more than once. So, now that your quasi-expert has established the exception does exist perhaps you can address the facts of this case rather than trying to diminish them. So now we have the 1 in a 100 occurrence where the FBI determined that asking for access (multiple times) was necessary, and the DNC refused access every time....insisting that it would provide the evidence "in-house". Which, in fact, ultimately was accepted by the FBI...sounds like an Executive decision was made....i mean it was only a incident involving a hostile foreign agent trying to interfere in a Presidential Election, right?...why would that be exceptional?....nothing to see here, correct?....move along, move along.

[_canpakes]

(Ok, let us just ignore your inept argument that the FBI does not want to collect evidence for themselves because they claim they are just really bad at collecting evidence).

So if we assume your claim is factual, this is the 1 out of 10 cases where the FBI did ask for access...and they asked more than once. So, now that your quasi-expert has established the exception does exist perhaps you can address the facts of this case rather than trying to diminish them. So now we have the 1 in a 100 occurrence where the FBI determined that asking for access (multiple times) was necessary, and the DNC refused access every time....insisting that it would provide the evidence "in-house". Which, in fact, ultimately was accepted by the FBI...sounds like an Executive decision was made....i mean it was only a incident involving a hostile foreign agent trying to interfere in a Presidential Election, right?...why would that be exceptional?....nothing to see here, correct?....move along, move along.

CFR on these ratios? I’m sure you have that information somewhere, right?

[_subgenius]

(Ok, let us just ignore your inept argument that the FBI does not want to collect evidence for themselves because they claim they are just really bad at collecting evidence).

So if we assume your claim is factual, this is the 1 out of 10 cases where the FBI did ask for access...and they asked more than once. So, now that your quasi-expert has established the exception does exist perhaps you can address the facts of this case rather than trying to diminish them. So now we have the 1 in a 100 occurrence where the FBI determined that asking for access (multiple times) was necessary, and the DNC refused access every time....insisting that it would provide the evidence "in-house". Which, in fact, ultimately was accepted by the FBI...sounds like an Executive decision was made....i mean it was only a incident involving a hostile foreign agent trying to interfere in a Presidential Election, right?...why would that be exceptional?....nothing to see here, correct?....move along, move along.

CFR on these ratios? I’m sure you have that information somewhere, right?

Um, i quoted those ratios directly from this poster's post...so maybe CFR your colleague mon frere....see if they have that information somewhere, right?

[_canpakes]

CFR on these ratios? I’m sure you have that information somewhere, right?

Um, i quoted those ratios directly from this poster's post...so maybe CFR your colleague mon frere....see if they have that information somewhere, right?

Yes, quoting Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI’s New York office. And he doesn't seem to see any issues with what happened here.

So tell us again why we should believe your hair-fire conspiracy rantings over Mr. Taddeo?