• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox calls white black.

CaughtInThe said:
these people love lying. it's made them rich.
Click to expand...

Its also a show of power with Tucker. Just to see how many people he can fool or disconcert, he will lie as a show of machismo.
 
Bodhisattva said:
With the poor grammar I understand what you are saying... in a debate though, it is incumbent upon you to counter with a quote where he did say he wanted a quid pro quo after I provided evidence that he did not want it. Otherwise why bother even posting? All it shows is you lost.
Click to expand...

Is Trump your Alamo, defend at all costs?
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,”
Click to expand...
You're hanging on to a singular sentence out of Trumps mouth that doesn't help his case. It's like Capone telling someone, "I didn't wanna see Hymie Weiss dead" It's a completely meaningless statement.
 
So... the takeaway is that the CNN banner reads "Sondland: Yes quid pro quo", the FOX banner reads "Sondland: No quid pro quo", and the reality is "Sondland: I inferred quid pro quo".

Is that about the sum of it?
 
COTO said:
So... the takeaway is that the CNN banner reads "Sondland: Yes quid pro quo", the FOX banner reads "Sondland: No quid pro quo", and the reality is "Sondland: I inferred quid pro quo".

Is that about the sum of it?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Lovebug said:
at least there's an alternative to the other liars.
Now, what is this about? Are we to sit through 2 videos to find out who said what? Some OP we got here. Outrage dejour, no time for words.
Click to expand...

Everybody lieeees all the tieeeem. Theres no truth in the world just alternatives so whats the point?! :lamo
 
COTO said:
So... the takeaway is that the CNN banner reads "Sondland: Yes quid pro quo", the FOX banner reads "Sondland: No quid pro quo", and the reality is "Sondland: I inferred quid pro quo".

Is that about the sum of it?
I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
AProudLefty said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Uh huh.

Hence you guys are arguing over what can/can't reasonably be inferred and practical standards of proof for absolutely no reason?

I'm not an idiot. I know what this thread would look like if Mr. Sondland had made a slam dunk case for either side, and this definitely isn't it.

I'm sorry his testimony couldn't clear the waters a little. Your nation could use a break from the media warfare. :(
 
COTO said:
Uh huh.

Hence you guys are arguing over what can/can't reasonably be inferred and practical standards of proof for absolutely no reason?

I'm not an idiot. I know what this thread would look like if Mr. Sondland had made a slam dunk case for either side, and this definitely isn't it.

I'm sorry his testimony couldn't clear the waters a little. Your nation could use a break from the media warfare. :(
Click to expand...

Read post #84. It's clear what Sondland said.
 
bomberfox said:
Its also a show of power with Tucker. Just to see how many people he can fool or disconcert, he will lie as a show of machismo.
Click to expand...

i personally think he lies to pay his mortgage. what else is he good at?
 
HenryChinaski said:
Fox is is merely telling their elderly and cantankerous base what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

Fox newscasters during the day have become indistinguishable from any other network in the past few years. Was watching the other day a segment on Smollett, the news caster and two invited guest. Both brought in Trump as tied to a new age of alternative facts and Jessie doing the same in his court case, following Trumps lead. And the fox newscaster agreeing. Geez, could they at least try to hide their bias.
 
HenryChinaski said:
"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” "
Click to expand...
I get that. But it's one quote from hours of testimony, and others here have pointed out instances where he qualified or contradicted it. We can't reasonably ignore this.

As I see it, any news station running either "Yes" or "No" on the banner is being dishonest. It seems as though Mr. Sondland's testimony needs to be viewed as a total package, in context, with full listener awareness of the qualifications, inferences, etc. I wouldn't want to make a judgment on it without the information/excerpts both sides have provided in this thread.
 
COTO said:
I get that. But it's one quote from hours of testimony, and others here have pointed out instances where he qualified or contradicted it. We can't reasonably ignore this.

As I see it, any news station running either "Yes" or "No" on the banner is being dishonest. It seems as though Mr. Sondland's testimony needs to be viewed as a total package, in context, with full listener awareness of the qualifications, inferences, etc. I wouldn't want to make a judgment on it without the information/excerpts both sides have provided in this thread.
Click to expand...

I dont think hearing both sides automatically means one is more informed.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Is Trump your Alamo, defend at all costs? You're hanging on to a singular sentence out of Trumps mouth that doesn't help his case. It's like Capone telling someone, "I didn't wanna see Hymie Weiss dead" It's a completely meaningless statement.
Click to expand...

You did not provide a link to your source...
 
Jonsa said:
Apparently there is no shame in trumpville tonight,

When the fox opinion clowns outright lie to their audience with righteous indignation. There is bias and then there is outright friggin lying. Seems tucker and the gang have no problems with it.

View attachment 67268627
Click to expand...
Of the two cyrons, Tucker's is the more accurate. Scondland did say there was a quid pro quo. It was a lie; he recanted under cross. It was an intentional lie design specifically to generate the fabricated narrative on complicit media.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Grim17 said:
Actually, the president did tell him that in a phone call.

.
Click to expand...

When he said "I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to do the right thing." That time?
 
Bodhisattva said:
With the poor grammar I understand what you are saying... in a debate though, it is incumbent upon you to counter with a quote where he did say he wanted a quid pro quo after I provided evidence that he did not want it. Otherwise why bother even posting? All it shows is you lost.
Click to expand...

You didn't provide evidence that he did not want it.
 
JMR said:
You didn't provide evidence that he did not want it.
Click to expand...
uhhh... that was exactly what my youtube video showed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom