John: A recent poll showed that 92% of Americans - a record number - distrust the U.S. government. But the latest initiatives by both parties want to greatly expand the size and role of government. I'm having a hard time squaring these two seemingly contradictory situations. Can you explain this?
I'm gobsmacked at this one- Trump posts an AI image of himself holding hands or arms with Dolly Parton after her death while everyone knows she was politically neutral, even refusing awards so as to NOT appear political. Dolly's sister Stella is furious, to say the least. This behavior has hit an all-time high, so, what's next?
O’Reilly can be a polarizing figure, and I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s adamant that he is fact based on his reporting, and will not ever use anonymous sources. Also claims he has a staff of over 25 people working for him in vetting anything he reports. So when he said THIS on his show, it grabbed my attention. He was asked why the House Democratic votes under Speaker Pelosi were always unanimous, and he responded that she threatens to take away the campaign funds of any dissenters. Huh? And he also said nobody in the CMS media will ever report it. Have you or Bernie ever heard this? We’ve all heard she ran the House with an iron fist, but this sounds like extortion. And how would she have the authority to even do this. I know one thing, it seems to make sense. Because the Dems, unlike the GOP, always stuck together. Could Speaker Johnson do the same thing to get the votes he needs on critical legislation. Not saying I agree with it.
And one other thing. Unlike Fox News viewers, I’m not outraged by Bernie’s integrity (and your’s), I’M THANKFUL FOR IT. It’s why I subscribe.
Assuming that were true, how is it any different than Trump threatening to back primary challengers to GOP members of Congress who don't vote the way he wants them to?
Absolutely true, both parties do it. The WSJ had an article how the White House is securing funds for their pet projects including the ballroom. Trump referred to the women securing the funding from corporations as the "princess of darkness".
I genuinely like Bill O'Reilly, and I believe he injects his own opinions into his "fact-based" analysis at times. Nowadays the "facts" are interpreted by various angles of reality- the interpreters'.
I was disappointed with Bill O after Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico to America, and the Defense Dept to the War Dept. Bill first announced he was a traditionalist, and wasn't in favor of Trump's decisions on the changes. Weeks after still referring to the traditional names, Bill started referring to the "fake" names. I suppose to avoid Trump's 3am phone calls to criticize how Bill isn't being fair to him. Bill's no dummy, and he does see the impact of some decisions as not helping our country any.
I wanted to clarify one thing. I believe Chris S was let go because he called Arizona for Biden sooner than anyone else and not the entire election as implied.
At that point in the night, Biden winning Arizona meant he had won the entire election. This was based on the electoral-count math (which was based on which other states had already been called).
Biden winning Arizona meant it was all over. Thus, when Fox News called Arizona for Biden, they also had to call the national election for him.
I will clarify one thing: Chris Stirewalt didn't unilaterally call Arizona for Biden. He was part of Fox News's election-night team who unanimously called it for Biden. Others on the team weren't on-air talent. Chris was, so he's the person who was put on television to later explain the call (and thus, he became the face of the call to Fox viewers, and why Fox later chose to fire him as a sacrificial lamb to their viewers).
He was fired for doing his job correctly, and doing it well.
Also, the reason Fox called Arizona before other election-teams was that Fox had invested a ton of money in an election-analysis system that the network had been bragging, for weeks, would give them a speed-advantage in calling states and districts on election night (which it did).
Of all the people who lost their carers at Fox because of Trump, what happened to Stirewalt was the most deranged.
It was so sad to see Stirewalt testifying on Capitol Hill about that call. He made a reference to how his team beat the other networks "so badly". He was obviously proud of their work, even though he lost his job because of it.
I still see MAGA bots twisting themselves into knots about why it was wrong for him to make that call. Something about, sure he just happened to be right, but he used the wrong process to get there, and so it still was wrong for him to make that call in that moment, yada yada.
Anyway, happy that he, as well as his then-boss Bill Sammon, eventually landed on their feet at Nexstar (NewsNation / The Hill).
Yeah, I'm sure going from Fox News to NewsNation amounted to a significant pay-cut, but he seems very happy with where he currently is in life. He's a great guy, and I'm happy for him.
It was both. He defended the Decision Desk's projection - which of course was accurate. But the Fox audience didn't want to hear it, so the messenger needed to be killed.
John: A recent poll showed that 92% of Americans - a record number - distrust the U.S. government. But the latest initiatives by both parties want to greatly expand the size and role of government. I'm having a hard time squaring these two seemingly contradictory situations. Can you explain this?
I'm gobsmacked at this one- Trump posts an AI image of himself holding hands or arms with Dolly Parton after her death while everyone knows she was politically neutral, even refusing awards so as to NOT appear political. Dolly's sister Stella is furious, to say the least. This behavior has hit an all-time high, so, what's next?
O’Reilly can be a polarizing figure, and I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s adamant that he is fact based on his reporting, and will not ever use anonymous sources. Also claims he has a staff of over 25 people working for him in vetting anything he reports. So when he said THIS on his show, it grabbed my attention. He was asked why the House Democratic votes under Speaker Pelosi were always unanimous, and he responded that she threatens to take away the campaign funds of any dissenters. Huh? And he also said nobody in the CMS media will ever report it. Have you or Bernie ever heard this? We’ve all heard she ran the House with an iron fist, but this sounds like extortion. And how would she have the authority to even do this. I know one thing, it seems to make sense. Because the Dems, unlike the GOP, always stuck together. Could Speaker Johnson do the same thing to get the votes he needs on critical legislation. Not saying I agree with it.
And one other thing. Unlike Fox News viewers, I’m not outraged by Bernie’s integrity (and your’s), I’M THANKFUL FOR IT. It’s why I subscribe.
Assuming that were true, how is it any different than Trump threatening to back primary challengers to GOP members of Congress who don't vote the way he wants them to?
Absolutely true, both parties do it. The WSJ had an article how the White House is securing funds for their pet projects including the ballroom. Trump referred to the women securing the funding from corporations as the "princess of darkness".
I genuinely like Bill O'Reilly, and I believe he injects his own opinions into his "fact-based" analysis at times. Nowadays the "facts" are interpreted by various angles of reality- the interpreters'.
Oh, I don't think even O'Reilly would disagree with that. He's a commentator, not a hard-news reporter. Same with Bernie (these days) and me.
I was disappointed with Bill O after Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico to America, and the Defense Dept to the War Dept. Bill first announced he was a traditionalist, and wasn't in favor of Trump's decisions on the changes. Weeks after still referring to the traditional names, Bill started referring to the "fake" names. I suppose to avoid Trump's 3am phone calls to criticize how Bill isn't being fair to him. Bill's no dummy, and he does see the impact of some decisions as not helping our country any.
Even Bret Baier is using the "new" names, and it's so embarrassing.
I wanted to clarify one thing. I believe Chris S was let go because he called Arizona for Biden sooner than anyone else and not the entire election as implied.
At that point in the night, Biden winning Arizona meant he had won the entire election. This was based on the electoral-count math (which was based on which other states had already been called).
Biden winning Arizona meant it was all over. Thus, when Fox News called Arizona for Biden, they also had to call the national election for him.
I will clarify one thing: Chris Stirewalt didn't unilaterally call Arizona for Biden. He was part of Fox News's election-night team who unanimously called it for Biden. Others on the team weren't on-air talent. Chris was, so he's the person who was put on television to later explain the call (and thus, he became the face of the call to Fox viewers, and why Fox later chose to fire him as a sacrificial lamb to their viewers).
He was fired for doing his job correctly, and doing it well.
Also, the reason Fox called Arizona before other election-teams was that Fox had invested a ton of money in an election-analysis system that the network had been bragging, for weeks, would give them a speed-advantage in calling states and districts on election night (which it did).
Of all the people who lost their carers at Fox because of Trump, what happened to Stirewalt was the most deranged.
He was literally fired for telling the truth.
It was so sad to see Stirewalt testifying on Capitol Hill about that call. He made a reference to how his team beat the other networks "so badly". He was obviously proud of their work, even though he lost his job because of it.
I still see MAGA bots twisting themselves into knots about why it was wrong for him to make that call. Something about, sure he just happened to be right, but he used the wrong process to get there, and so it still was wrong for him to make that call in that moment, yada yada.
Anyway, happy that he, as well as his then-boss Bill Sammon, eventually landed on their feet at Nexstar (NewsNation / The Hill).
Yeah, I'm sure going from Fox News to NewsNation amounted to a significant pay-cut, but he seems very happy with where he currently is in life. He's a great guy, and I'm happy for him.
It was both. He defended the Decision Desk's projection - which of course was accurate. But the Fox audience didn't want to hear it, so the messenger needed to be killed.