freedom is errywhere

Morning Joe has no spine or moral compass. They sucked on the Trump teat when he made it available since it was good for ratings. Now that he won't come on their show, they criticize him since that is better for ratings (but if he'd come back to the show, they'd go easy on him again - at least in the interview). I find it hilarious when Joe goes on a rant about people complaining they were soft on Trump and cites the one time he asked Trump a tough question.

hurr durr

It's pretty unusual for derp to make me literally lol.

I don't know about gateway drug. Some of the people on this board who I've discovered read Breitbart (not in the Politics Forum) are not ever going to read Stormfront. I think there's a class separation between the groups.

Joe's ratings are tanking bigly too. I think someone got to them and said something along the lines of, "Not for nothing but you have the lowest-rated morning talk show right now. Conservatives will never watch this show, and you've pissed off everyone else by kowtowing to Trump...so maybe don't do that so much?" It really feels like they're trying to walk it all back in order to become relevant again.

Joe spent a good portion of Monday's show opining about how horribad Stephen Miller's comments on the judiciary were. Is THIS really the last straw after everything you saw during the campaign? Seriously?

I presume all the professionals would agree it's ethically wrong to diagnose someone based on public information. And even if that weren't the case, that such a diagnosis would be less reliable than normal. But both Frances and the group he criticized must believe there is a greater good to be served. For me, it's useful to know that 1) experts are arguing about whether Trump has a serious mental health problem and 2) they nevertheless agree he is unfit to be president. It's similar to whistle-blower and leak issues. Even Trump acknowledges (some, ha) leaks are good.

Doesn't matter if they never visit the website or read the lingo. They may even know of the name and think of it as a bad place that they wouldn't want to go. But they are spouting their propaganda and voting for their white nationalist candidates (Republicans) so it doesn't matter if they never make it to SF or put on a white robe and hood. In fact, it might be more effective for "the movement" for a huge part of their foot soldiers to be insulated from all that, as it gives them more credibility.

Question: how are the Trump tweets supporting Fox News while demonizing other news sources any different than KAC saying we should buy Ivanka products?

I mean seriously if you're letting ****ing Gateway Pundit in then why not The Onion? jfc

There's probably a more nuanced and better answer out there, but the short version is that it's pretty much the same but the law conveniently doesn't apply to Trump.

I'm pretty much boycotting all of MSNBC after that whole election fiasco. What went down with Melissa Harris-Perry and the whole Morning Joe ****show were completely unacceptable. MSNBC is not on the side of We The People, they are bigly capitalists and they are just exploiting this whole situation. They are not a real news organization and they are not to be trusted.

Trump or his family members don't have a financial interest in Fox as far as I know.

Even Rachel Maddow is not to be trusted?

Pudzer donezo

I like Maddow and Chris Hayes, I find them to be very trustworthy apart from their affiliation with MSNBC.

Well, I'm trying construct a way to argue that Breitbart is worse than Stormfront. There's part of the right that benefits from racial animosity and foments it. They do this on purpose because it helps them in other areas. You can't convince them they are wrong, because they aren't. They're just selfish bastards. There's another part of the right which is deplorable and hates people based on the color of their skin, but thinks they are right and righteous. Those people may be more redeemable.

The Breitbarters know full well that they are pushing ethno-Nationalism and whether they can stomach having a black person or a Jew over for dinner or not, they're cool with it and will defend their position as being color/race-blind.

The Chris Matthews - Kellayne Conway lovefest is also horrendous - even when he asks tough questions and she gives horrendous non-answers, he always praises her as a good person and strategist. It's worse than Hannity, etc. interviews, since Hannity isn't subtle at all in his support for Trump.

Well that's exactly right. It's more dangerous because people who would never associate themselves with the KKK or the Nazi party are more than happy to associate themselves with Breitbart, Milo, various "shock humor" comedians, and PUA/MRA types that are pushing soft sexism. It all leads to the same place though, and once you're drawn into the group it doesn't matter how you got there.

His exact quote:
He's like a 5th grader bull****ting his way through a class presentation.

Yes and this was also a problem I had with Maddow during the campaign. She had Conway on all the time but no good ever came of it, you can't really pierce that wall and all you are doing is giving her a platform to get her lies out there. Instead don't let her on or play a pre-recorded interview and edit out everything that's not true before it airs.

rachel is queen

Ditto, though I think Hayes is much less critical of whatever group think is popular. I haven't watched as much of her as many people here I'm sure, but Maddow always seems pretty awesome to me.

I'm starting to like Hayes better than Maddow. I think Maddow is kind of the snarky liberal id, I think Hayes tends to put things in a larger context very well and his show is a little more issues-focused.

does he own fox news?