Mic drop
-
Another view from Fox News
Link to video -
She says "We want every legal vote to be counted."
Is there a problem with that statement?
Then she says, "And we want every illegal vote to be...."
And Cavuto cuts her feed off before the sentence is even finished.
C'mon, man!
-
She says "We want every legal vote to be counted."
Is there a problem with that statement?
Then she says, "And we want every illegal vote to be...."
And Cavuto cuts her feed off before the sentence is even finished.
C'mon, man!
@George-K From my understand, it was comments made before this.
(But, I did not watch any of the press conference live or the whole thing, so I really don’t know.
LOL. )I am just throwing out accusations without evidence! 555
-
@George-K From my understand, it was comments made before this.
(But, I did not watch any of the press conference live or the whole thing, so I really don’t know.
LOL. )I am just throwing out accusations without evidence! 555
@taiwan_girl said in Mic drop:
@George-K From my understand, it was comments made before this.
Entirely possible.
Not in the video you linked, however.
I didn't see the live show.
I eagerly await the next administration's press secretary's comment being cut off by the media.
-
So, now they're being mean to Trump we're all going to acknowledge that Fox are shit?
What took you so long?
-
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
OK, then. Let's not hear what the kid says and cut the audio before interjecting your own opinion.
That's not to say that what "the kid" was going to say was false or true.
My point is that Cavuto's cutting her off removes any possibility of knowing whether that's accurate or not.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
OK, then. Let's not hear what the kid says and cut the audio before interjecting your own opinion.
That's not to say that what "the kid" was going to say was false or true.
My point is that Cavuto's cutting her off removes any possibility of knowing whether that's accurate or not.
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
OK, then. Let's not hear what the kid says and cut the audio before interjecting your own opinion.
That's not to say that what "the kid" was going to say was false or true.
My point is that Cavuto's cutting her off removes any possibility of knowing whether that's accurate or not.
Because he’s heard it over and over and is tired of giving the kid crying wolf a megaphone. Show some paw prints, even if they’re of a coyote, otherwise stop telling the nation there has been massive illegal voting and the election is fraudulent.
How is this even a debate anymore? Has Trump really watered down the Presidential ethical standard that much that we have to decide if it’s ok for the President make baseless claims that undermine our very democratic process?
-
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
OK, then. Let's not hear what the kid says and cut the audio before interjecting your own opinion.
That's not to say that what "the kid" was going to say was false or true.
My point is that Cavuto's cutting her off removes any possibility of knowing whether that's accurate or not.
-
I get it, your guy (won/lost). You are (ecstatic/pissed), and with good reason. However, all of the (gloating/insults) are making you look a little small as a person and is doing your side no good.
So why don't we chill? The state legislators/courts/electors will all have their say. It will be interesting and informative to watch and relay the various news articles, tweets, videos, etc... as it all plays out, but let's try to remember that there are real people on the opposite side that DO deserve respect (whether you think so or not).
-
In my highly accurate and scientific analogy, the kid has cried wolf every day for the last 3 months, with not even a paw print to show.
OK, then. Let's not hear what the kid says and cut the audio before interjecting your own opinion.
That's not to say that what "the kid" was going to say was false or true.
My point is that Cavuto's cutting her off removes any possibility of knowing whether that's accurate or not.
Because he’s heard it over and over and is tired of giving the kid crying wolf a megaphone. Show some paw prints, even if they’re of a coyote, otherwise stop telling the nation there has been massive illegal voting and the election is fraudulent.
How is this even a debate anymore? Has Trump really watered down the Presidential ethical standard that much that we have to decide if it’s ok for the President make baseless claims that undermine our very democratic process?
Because he’s heard it over and over and is tired of giving the kid crying wolf a megaphone.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.
I really don't care if her statement is true or not. The point is that as a "journalist" he should at least afford her the courtesy of hearing what the Press Secretary of the President of the United States has to say.
But he didn't . He cut her off, and he shut her up because he didn't like what she was going to say (accurate or not). This is not "journalism". This is hackism/censorship.
Pick your adjective.
But, we'll never know whether what she said was true or not, because, like Twitter, he told her to shut up.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Apparently, the WH may have crossed a line that is too much even for Rupert Murdoch.
Which, all things considered, is really going some.
-
Because he’s heard it over and over and is tired of giving the kid crying wolf a megaphone.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.
I really don't care if her statement is true or not. The point is that as a "journalist" he should at least afford her the courtesy of hearing what the Press Secretary of the President of the United States has to say.
But he didn't . He cut her off, and he shut her up because he didn't like what she was going to say (accurate or not). This is not "journalism". This is hackism/censorship.
Pick your adjective.
But, we'll never know whether what she said was true or not, because, like Twitter, he told her to shut up.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
-
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
A wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution is not news?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
As I said before, I don’t think the news host cut her off because of her immediate comments but of comment she made before.
I think it is pretty well known that Fox News usually likes President Trump. That is why I posted it. When one of your supporters starts to question your views, it is a bit more “shocking”.
But I also think that every news organization does not show 100% of everything. I have listened to many news programs before where they “cut away” from what is being said by someone from the President team (not only President Trump but also President Obama).
-
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
A wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution is not news?
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the media’s rights to do so.
If you don’t like a particular medium, use a different medium or start your own.
