Kudlow Replaces Cohn

[Rockfish1]

It was hard enough for Trump to attract qualified people before it became clear what a clown show his administration would be. Now, with historic turnover, the replacements are looking . . . well, the replacements are looking like Larry Kudlow:

Larry Kudlow has not been an economist in at least a generation. Rather, he plays an economist on TV. Whatever ability he once had to make or analyze or present coherent and data-based economic arguments is long gone—with a number of his old friends blaming long-term consequences of severe and prolonged drug addiction.

The right way to view this appointment is, I think, as if Donald Trump were to name William Shatner to command the Navy's 7th Fleet.

That said, probably little damage will be done. The major day-to-day job of the NEC Chair is to coordinate the presentation of economic policy options to the President, and to try to keep the agencies and departments on the same page as they implement policy. Kudlow has negative talents in either organizing and presenting alternative points of view or in controlling bureaucracies. Therefore the agencies will each continue marching to its different drummer, and there will be no coherent presentation of policy options to the President. But that will not be new.​

 

[Rockfish1]

It was hard enough for Trump to attract qualified people before it became clear what a clown show his administration would be. Now, with historic turnover, the replacements are looking . . . well, the replacements are looking like Larry Kudlow:

Larry Kudlow has not been an economist in at least a generation. Rather, he plays an economist on TV. Whatever ability he once had to make or analyze or present coherent and data-based economic arguments is long gone—with a number of his old friends blaming long-term consequences of severe and prolonged drug addiction.

The right way to view this appointment is, I think, as if Donald Trump were to name William Shatner to command the Navy's 7th Fleet.

That said, probably little damage will be done. The major day-to-day job of the NEC Chair is to coordinate the presentation of economic policy options to the President, and to try to keep the agencies and departments on the same page as they implement policy. Kudlow has negative talents in either organizing and presenting alternative points of view or in controlling bureaucracies. Therefore the agencies will each continue marching to its different drummer, and there will be no coherent presentation of policy options to the President. But that will not be new.​

Larry Kudlow: Always wrong, never in doubt:

In 1993, when Bill Clinton proposed an increase in the top tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, Kudlow wrote, “There is no question that President Clinton’s across-the-board tax increases … will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depress the economy’s long-run potential to grow.” This was wrong. Instead, a boom ensued. Rather than question his analysis, Kudlow switched to crediting the results to the great tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan. “The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan,” he argued in February, 2000.

By December 2000, the expansion had begun to slow. What had happened? According to Kudlow, it meant Reagan’s tax-cutting genius was no longer responsible for the economy’s performance. “The Clinton policies of rising tax burdens, high interest rates and re-regulation is responsible for the sinking stock market and the slumping economy,” he mourned, though no taxes or re-regulation had taken place since he had credited Reagan for the boom earlier that same year. By the time George W. Bush took office, Kudlow was plumping for his tax-cut plan. Kudlow not only endorsed Bush’s argument that the budget surplus he inherited from Clinton — the one Kudlow and his allies had insisted in 1993 could never happen, because the tax hikes would strangle the economy — would turn out to be even larger than forecast. “Faster economic growth and more profitable productivity returns will generate higher tax revenues at the new lower tax-rate levels. Future budget surpluses will rise, not fall.” This was wrong, too. (I have borrowed these quotes from my book, in which Kudlow plays a prominent role.)

Kudlow then began to relentlessly tout Bush’s economic program. “The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand points,” he predicted in 2002. That was wrong. He began to insist that the housing bubble that was forming was a hallucination imagined by Bush’s liberal critics who refused to appreciate the magic of the Bush boom. He made this case over and over (“There’s no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It’s not going to happen. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that’s a minimum). Goldilocks is alive and well. The Bush boom is alive and well.”) and over (“The Media Are Missing the Housing Bottom,” he wrote in July 2008). All of this was wrong. It was historically, massively wrong.

When Obama took office, Kudlow was detecting an “inflationary bubble.” That was wrong. He warned in 2009 that the administration “is waging war on investors. He’s waging war against businesses. He’s waging war against bondholders. These are very bad things.” That was also wrong, and when the recovery proceeded, by 2011, he credited the Bush tax cuts for the recovery. (Kudlow, April 2011: “March unemployment rate drop proof lower taxes work.”) By 2012, Kudlow found new grounds to test out his theories: Kansas, where he advised Republican governor Sam Brownback to implement a sweeping tax-cut plan that would produce faster growth. This was wrong. Alas, Brownback’s program has proven a comprehensive failure, falling short of all its promises and leaving the state in fiscal turmoil.​

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[76-1]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

Another of their heads goes poofff...

 

[sglowrider]

Republican logic....

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Republican logic....

View embedded media

You got away with using “republican” and “logic” together without using some form of the words “lack” or “have no”. That’s damn impressive.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

Another of their heads goes poofff...

Predictably, the sort of people who thought it was a good idea to put an imbecile in the White House are unconcerned that President Dunning-Kruger is surrounding himself with people as unfit for their jobs as he is.

 

[37Hoosier]

It was hard enough for Trump to attract qualified people before it became clear what a clown show his administration would be. Now, with historic turnover, the replacements are looking . . . well, the replacements are looking like Larry Kudlow:

Larry Kudlow has not been an economist in at least a generation. Rather, he plays an economist on TV. Whatever ability he once had to make or analyze or present coherent and data-based economic arguments is long gone—with a number of his old friends blaming long-term consequences of severe and prolonged drug addiction.

The right way to view this appointment is, I think, as if Donald Trump were to name William Shatner to command the Navy's 7th Fleet.

That said, probably little damage will be done. The major day-to-day job of the NEC Chair is to coordinate the presentation of economic policy options to the President, and to try to keep the agencies and departments on the same page as they implement policy. Kudlow has negative talents in either organizing and presenting alternative points of view or in controlling bureaucracies. Therefore the agencies will each continue marching to its different drummer, and there will be no coherent presentation of policy options to the President. But that will not be new.​

Please don't be ridiculous. James T Kirk would never join this administration.

 

[RBB89]

Another of their heads goes poofff...

I don’t know, I find it to be pretty important to call out blatant stupidity.

This is the attitude that drives me nuts. The celebration of ignorance. Instead of calling out the stupid person, you call out the people pointing out that that person is stupid.

 

[RBB89]

Speaking of television personalities and ignorance, just look at this. It’s no wonder that this country is so freaking stupid. Cable news is awful.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I don’t know, I find it to be pretty important to call out blatant stupidity.

This is the attitude that drives me nuts. The celebration of ignorance. Instead of calling out the stupid person, you call out the people pointing out that that person is stupid.

You’re talking to people who celebrate ignorance. It’s a virtue to them.

 

[UncleMark]

You’re talking to people who celebrate ignorance. It’s a virtue to them.

That way no one is better than them.

 

[76-1]

I don’t know, I find it to be pretty important to call out blatant stupidity.

This is the attitude that drives me nuts. The celebration of ignorance. Instead of calling out the stupid person, you call out the people pointing out that that person is stupid.

Just curious, do you actually know anything about Larry Kudlow aside from what you just read about him in the post above? Have you ever heard the guy expound on any topic whatsoever? My guess is is no... No need to respond, I wouldn't want to cut into your MSNBC time...

 

[Rockfish1]

Just curious, do you actually know anything about Larry Kudlow aside from what you just read about him in the post above? Have you ever heard the guy expound on any topic whatsoever? My guess is is no... No need to respond, I wouldn't want to cut into your MSNBC time...

I know a fair amount about him. What do you know about him? Have my posts mischaracterized him?

 

[iu_a_att]

Predictably, the sort of people who thought it was a good idea to put an imbecile in the White House are unconcerned that President Dunning-Kruger is surrounding himself with people as unfit for their jobs as he is.

You answer this sincerely...well done.

 

[sglowrider]

Trump originally planned to put Cohn at CIA, but changed his mind
Before his resignation, the former White House economic adviser discussed alternate roles with the president—who nevertheless decided to give the top spy job to someone else.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/trump-cia-gary-cohn-471047

Former White House economic adviser Gary Cohn reached a tentative agreement with President Donald Trump to become his CIA director — but lost out on the role after Trump abruptly changed his mind.

Trump, these people said, informally offered Cohn the position, telling him he thought he’d be a good fit for the job, and Cohn had agreed to take it.

Wall Street to Langley.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Predictably, the sort of people who thought it was a good idea to put an imbecile in the White House are unconcerned that President Dunning-Kruger is surrounding himself with people as unfit for their jobs as he is.

And for the Dunning-Kruger Trump supporters:

Their expertise about current affairs is too fractured and full of holes to spot that only 9 percent of Trump’s statements are “true” or “mostly” true, according to PolitiFact, whereas 57 percent are “false” or “mostly false”—the remainder being “pants on fire” untruths. Trump himself has memorably declared: “I love the poorly educated.”

But as a psychologist who has studied human behavior—including voter behavior—for decades, I think there is something deeper going on. The problem isn’t that voters are too uninformed. It is that they don’t know just how uninformed they are.

...​

To sum it up, the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task—and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task. This includes political judgment.
​

The problem is more about his supporters than about Trump, who sooner or later will blimp off into the sunset.

 

[Rockfish1]

And for the Dunning-Kruger Trump supporters:

Their expertise about current affairs is too fractured and full of holes to spot that only 9 percent of Trump’s statements are “true” or “mostly” true, according to PolitiFact, whereas 57 percent are “false” or “mostly false”—the remainder being “pants on fire” untruths. Trump himself has memorably declared: “I love the poorly educated.”

But as a psychologist who has studied human behavior—including voter behavior—for decades, I think there is something deeper going on. The problem isn’t that voters are too uninformed. It is that they don’t know just how uninformed they are.

...​

To sum it up, the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task—and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task. This includes political judgment.
​

The problem is more about his supporters than about Trump, who sooner or later will blimp off into the sunset.

It's a problem that there's an imbecile in the White House, but it's a more fundamental problem that 62 million of us thought it was a good idea to put him there, and 82 percent of Republicans still approve of his job performance. Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein had it right back in 2012 when they squarely located the source of our political dysfunction within the Republican Party:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

. . . We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
​

Bothsiderism is obvious bullshit right now. It's a simple matter to locate the source of the Trump problem. It lies with those who support and enable the imbecile -- many (most?) for just the reasons that David Dunning describes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's a problem that there's an imbecile in the White House, but it's a more fundamental problem that 62 million of us thought it was a good idea to put him there, and 82 percent of Republicans still approve of his job performance. Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein had it right back in 2012 when they squarely located the source of our political dysfunction within the Republican Party:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

. . . We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
​

Bothsiderism is obvious bullshit right now. It's a simple matter to locate the source of the Trump problem. It lies with those who support and enable the imbecile -- many (most?) for just the reasons that David Dunning describes.

Willful ignorance. Once you remember how Reid ran the senate and recall what that study used as a political center of gravity it’s easy to see bothsiderism is indeed in play.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

It's a problem that there's an imbecile in the White House, but it's a more fundamental problem that 62 million of us thought it was a good idea to put him there, and 82 percent of Republicans still approve of his job performance. Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein had it right back in 2012 when they squarely located the source of our political dysfunction within the Republican Party:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

. . . We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
​

Bothsiderism is obvious bullshit right now. It's a simple matter to locate the source of the Trump problem. It lies with those who support and enable the imbecile -- many (most?) for just the reasons that David Dunning describes.

You guys would be scary if it wasn’t for the 2nd Amendment...keep on smoke’n

 

[Rockfish1]

Willful ignorance. Once you remember how Reid ran the senate and recall what that study used as a political center of gravity it’s easy to see bothsiderism is indeed in play.

On one hand, Republicans put an obviously unfit imbecile in the White House. On the other hand, California Democrats declined to endorse Diane Feinstein, preferring a somewhat more liberal challenger. I'll let the jackleg lawyer explain the equivalence.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

On one hand, Republicans put an obviously unfit imbecile in the White House. On the other hand, California Democrats declined to endorse Diane Feinstein, preferring a somewhat more liberal challenger. I'll let the jackleg lawyer explain the equivalence.

You spelled "Huh?" wrong.

 

[Lucy01]

You spelled "Huh?" wrong.

Well how about that

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Republicans put an obviously unfit imbecile in the White House

That’s debatable.Trump is the result of both party extremism, not the cause. Trump won a lot of traditional democratic voters because of the Democrat lurch to the left. And it continues to lurch, at least in California, the so called future of democratic politics. Many establishment Republicans were and are never Trumpers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'll let the jackleg lawyer explain the equivalence.

All I gotta do is clear my throat and you say “jack leg”. How does it feel to be the dog in Pavlov’s experiment?

 

[Lucy01]

That’s debatable.Trump is the result of both party extremism, not the cause. Trump won a lot of traditional democratic voters because of the Democrat lurch to the left. And it continues to lurch, at least in California, the so called future of democratic politics. Many establishment Republicans were and are never Trumpers.

I am happy he rolled back all those social issues that were abominations! Indiana is going to build a new Coal generating plant that the posters on this board said would never happen

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's a problem that there's an imbecile in the White House, but it's a more fundamental problem that 62 million of us thought it was a good idea to put him there, and 82 percent of Republicans still approve of his job performance. Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein had it right back in 2012 when they squarely located the source of our political dysfunction within the Republican Party:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

. . . We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
​

Bothsiderism is obvious bullshit right now. It's a simple matter to locate the source of the Trump problem. It lies with those who support and enable the imbecile -- many (most?) for just the reasons that David Dunning describes.

It’s my personal experience right now that the younger GOP / Trump voters in my life now say they support him nearly exclusively because of all his negative media attention.

There is a cost to the full-out media blitz...childish a cost though it be...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It’s my personal experience right now that the younger GOP / Trump voters in my life now say they support him nearly exclusively because of all his negative media attention.

There is a cost to the full-out media blitz...childish a cost though it be...

There are a sizeable number of Americans; who if told by Washington that putting a fork in an electrical socket was dangerous would run to their kitchen and do just that.

Those people love Trump.

 

[iu_a_att]

It’s my personal experience right now that the younger GOP / Trump voters in my life now say they support him nearly exclusively because of all his negative media attention.

There is a cost to the full-out media blitz...childish a cost though it be...

I wonder if they would enjoy this movie?

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Willful ignorance. Once you remember how Reid ran the senate and recall what that study used as a political center of gravity it’s easy to see bothsiderism is indeed in play.

It’s my personal experience right now that the younger GOP / Trump voters in my life now say they support him nearly exclusively because of all his negative media attention.

There is a cost to the full-out media blitz...childish a cost though it be...

Something to be said that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin went Trump. Meaning some Dems crossed over for some reason.

I do agree with you about the coverage....all part of the “issues” the left refuses to accept as to why people have turned away. Being preached at by millionaire celebrities with their heads exploding on television and late night ha ha fests just keeps the flame on the pot.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

There are a sizeable number of Americans; who if told by Washington that putting a fork in an electrical socket was dangerous would run to their kitchen and do just that.

Those people love Trump.

Yes and the Dems filed the lawsuit against the maker of the fork for not having the foresight to see he was an idiot. Then the following day they introduced legislation to create a new Bureau of Utensil Saftey to oversee the utensil industry because every year 36 people are injured in eating utensil accidents.

Don’t buy it? Sounds similar to a soda tax to me...idiotic

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes and the Dems filed the lawsuit against the maker of the fork for not having the foresight to see he was an idiot. Then the following day they introduced legislation to create a new Bureau of Utensil Saftey to oversee the utensil industry because every year 36 people are injured in eating utensil accidents.

Don’t buy it? Sounds similar to a soda tax to me...idiotic

You should stay out of purely partisan threads. When you discuss other topics, you are eminently bearable.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Something to be said that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin went Trump. Meaning some Dems crossed over for some reason.

I do agree with you about the coverage....all part of the “issues” the left refuses to accept as to why people have turned away. Being preached at by millionaire celebrities with their heads exploding on television and late night ha ha fests just keeps the flame on the pot.

Folks should be utterly embarrassed that they are so easily angered by comedians and hollywood. Meanwhile they think nothing of a guy named Sean spewing lies and hatred with the words “Breaking News” appearing during his nonsense. This is a uniquely #NewGOP problem.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Folks should be utterly embarrassed that they are so easily angered by comedians and hollywood. Meanwhile they think nothing of a guy named Sean spewing lies and hatred with the words “Breaking News” appearing during his nonsense. This is a uniquely #NewGOP problem.

Most find it funny it is one channel that has the left in a knot.... see I don’t even watch it. How do you explain my thoughts and feelings? I do catch Rush while in the car....but I’m not a Drudge, brietbart etc kind of guy.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

You should stay out of purely partisan threads. When you discuss other topics, you are eminently bearable.

Well good.....I think?!?

See, it is difficult to ignore your displeasure for my post and the ummm.... non issue with the broad brush stroke of M&M... but we know why I guess....

It’s all in good fun with a hint of irony

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well good.....I think?!?

See, it is difficult to ignore your displeasure for my post and the ummm.... non issue with the broad brush stroke of M&M... but we know why I guess....

It’s all in good fun with a hint of irony

Please note, I did not say all Trump voters were that way, just people who have this "You can't tell me what to do" attitude voted Trump. I finally get to use the word nuance.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well good.....I think?!?

See, it is difficult to ignore your displeasure for my post and the ummm.... non issue with the broad brush stroke of M&M... but we know why I guess....

It’s all in good fun with a hint of irony

If you had stopped after your first paragraph, you're post would have been an appropriate joke response to Marvin's joke. But you added that last line which hints that you take it just a bit too seriously, and ruins the humor.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Most find it funny it is one channel that has the left in a knot.... see I don’t even watch it. How do you explain my thoughts and feelings? I do catch Rush while in the car....but I’m not a Drudge, brietbart etc kind of guy.

I have no idea what you’re saying re Fox except that you’re yet another of the non-watchers whose talking points 100% overlap with your takes. Must be a wicked coincidence.

The problem and obsession with Fox from those who demand better media is that they’re the highest rated “news” network and once Baier signs off, it turns into a royal shit show. Well it used to be that, now it turns into state run media.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/media/fox-news-ralph-peters-propaganda-machine/index.html

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I have no idea what you’re saying re Fox except that you’re yet another of the non-watchers whose talking points 100% overlap with your takes. Must be a wicked coincidence.

The problem and obsession with Fox from those who demand better media is that they’re the highest rated “news” network and once Baier signs off, it turns into a royal shit show. Well it used to be that, now it turns into state run media.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/media/fox-news-ralph-peters-propaganda-machine/index.html

I my friend am not ashamed to say that there was a time I did watch it exclusively. I do look at their website each day as I do CNN’s. I think it is funny that you refuse to acknowledge the state of our media today... CNN has a heavy agenda on its shows. I have seen more CNN than Fox tv in the last few years because CNN provided a live stream through its website where Fox didn’t until recently.

Fox didn’t put Trump in office. Their viewership may be the largest on cable but it PALES in comparison to Network News.

Network news has its problems. Dan Rather, Brian Roberts, and George Step-whatever really gives a guy a good feeling about what they are getting.... what about the Times writers? You guys might get some people to listen to you if you weren’t so focused only on Fox...a little balanced criticism (which is due) would go a long way

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I my friend am not ashamed to say that there was a time I did watch it exclusively. I do look at their website each day as I do CNN’s. I think it is funny that you refuse to acknowledge the state of our media today... CNN has a heavy agenda on its shows. I have seen more CNN than Fox tv in the last few years because CNN provided a live stream through its website where Fox didn’t until recently.

Fox didn’t put Trump in office. Their viewership may be the largest on cable but it PALES in comparison to Network News.

Network news has its problems. Dan Rather, Brian Roberts, and George Step-whatever really gives a guy a good feeling about what they are getting.... what about the Times writers? You guys might get some people to listen to you if you weren’t so focused only on Fox...a little balanced criticism (which is due) would go a long way

Both web sites are complete trash. But there is a major difference in the quality of the live tv. Fox News has as good of a midday news segment as anybody with Smith, Cavuto, and Baier, but then it goes off the rails. The problem with Fox’s opinion shows is that they pass themselves off as news. They’re clearly not. Not only are they opinion, they’re the opinions of know-nothings who digest each conspiracy theory which is fine were it a fringe network. But it’s not, it’s the leader.