Widgets Magazine
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 151 to 158 of 158
  1. #151

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Uhhh...he also spied on the press. That was a good one.
    More of the same. Because HE did this or that, MY guy is okay. Donald “I alone can fix it” Trump used to tweet back in 2010, 2012, 2014, ALL the time about staff turnover, which in reality was remarkably low. He has created a whole new measure for staff turnover.Mayor Pete? I don’t agree with him about everything, but I really believe he would be far more competent in carrying out the daily duties as president.

  2. #152

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    More of the same. Because HE did this or that, MY guy is okay. Donald “I alone can fix it” Trump used to tweet back in 2010, 2012, 2014, ALL the time about staff turnover, which in reality was remarkably low. He has created a whole new measure for staff turnover.Mayor Pete? I don’t agree with him about everything, but I really believe he would be far more competent in carrying out the daily duties as president.
    It's pointing out how the press is happy to have their rights trampled on if it's their guy in there.

  3. #153

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    It's pointing out how the press is happy to have their rights trampled on if it's their guy in there.
    And THIS is exactly what Trump wanted.The press is the enemy of the people!“Unless their guy is in there”So, you no longer believe in a free and independent press? The NYT, Washington Post, NPR, were ALL critical of Obama when called for. Same for Bill Clinton, in fact they ragged on Clinton for Whitewater, Monica, to the point he was impeached. The press played a huge part in that — and there was no Fox News then.You’ve bought into the “all press is partisan.”I think you are wrong. Journalists still understand how to do the job. Opinion outlets like Fox, MSNBC are obvious and are not what I’m talking about. I’m sorry, there’s no formatting options at all. I have no idea why, but it’s been going on for a week or so.

  4. #154

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    ...I’m sorry, there’s no formatting options at all. I have no idea why, but it’s been going on for a week or so.
    It's from when the server was infected with something, and the vBulletin software got upgraded or changed and things got f-ed up somehow during that. DM Pete or Martin, Pete doesn't go into the Politics forum much (if at all), so he won't see this complaint, and hasn't been responding when folks mention things like these (there are multiple things that got broken and still haven't been fixed (formatting, not being able to view an ignored post, the "More" emoji link doesn't work, etc.). So a DM is probably the best thing to bring the broken-ness to his attention.

  5. #155

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    And THIS is exactly what Trump wanted.The press is the enemy of the people!“Unless their guy is in there”So, you no longer believe in a free and independent press? The NYT, Washington Post, NPR, were ALL critical of Obama when called for. Same for Bill Clinton, in fact they ragged on Clinton for Whitewater, Monica, to the point he was impeached. The press played a huge part in that — and there was no Fox News then.You’ve bought into the “all press is partisan.”I think you are wrong. Journalists still understand how to do the job. Opinion outlets like Fox, MSNBC are obvious and are not what I’m talking about. I’m sorry, there’s no formatting options at all. I have no idea why, but it’s been going on for a week or so.
    Actually, the Clinton impeachment is what put FOX on the map.

  6. #156

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    Actually, the Clinton impeachment is what put FOX on the map.
    I know it's what put the Drudge Report on the map... did it do the same for FOX? I remember that playing out largely over national network news.

  7. #157

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    I know it's what put the Drudge Report on the map... did it do the same for FOX? I remember that playing out largely over national network news.
    From wikipedia...

    "It launched on October 7, 1996 to 17 million cable subscribers"

    "In the 2000 presidential election, Fox News, which was available in 56 million homes nationwide, saw a staggering 440% increase in viewers, the biggest gain among the three cable news television networks."

    As I recall, they were pretty much wall to wall BJ coverage, even when the hearings weren't in session.

  8. #158

    Default Re: Presidental canidate Pete Buttigieg?

    Regarding the coverage of Clinton...(Nixon is covered in this piece as well):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...nixon-clinton/

    “As one was watching these [Senate Watergate] hearings, there was a sense that you didn’t know how it was going to end,” he said. There was a growing chance that Nixon would actually be removed. But “with the Clinton thing, the ending was pretty self-evident. It was going through the motions.”

    Even if the House or Senate had held theatrical hearings a la Watergate, Perlstein doubts they would have mattered.
    So to this fellow Perlstein...Nixon was covered wall to wall (note...this was well before Fox existed) because there was a chance he would actually be convicted by the Senate. Clinton was not covered as much due to everyone already knew the outcome. That being the case (I would not agree with him, but...) which do you think most mirrors our current day events.

    I mean, honestly, is there really a single person out there that believes the Senate will convict given what is known today? One of the fellows in the piece actually sees it the way I do.

    “At this point, it falls more toward the side of Clinton than the side of Nixon in terms of unknown outcome,” he said. “Everything we’ve heard so far, it’s pretty obvious what’s going to happen in the House, and then it’s pretty obvious what’s going to happen in the Senate.”
    Later he opines:

    “What’s like nothing I have ever seen before is that it’s like there’s no such thing as a bombshell anymore,” he said. With Watergate, “these were incredibly exciting little bits of data, dramaturgical explosions.” But with Trump, “we’ve had plenty of these already in this story, and they cease to have their narrative impact.”
    Yet he doesn't consider that maybe the modern day bombshells, just really aren't bombshells. Maybe he has misread it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Big thanks to pete!
    By mugofbeer in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 08:18 AM
  2. Thanks Pete
    By PennyQuilts in forum Announcements & Help Desk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 11:48 AM
  3. Bi-racial Presidental Confusion?!?
    By buckt in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 05:21 PM
  4. B-racial Presidental confusion?!?
    By buckt in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 04:31 PM
  5. Pete's Piano Bar
    By betts in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-22-2008, 04:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO