Roger Ailes is Dead, Bill's Gone, And Sean's A Tad Too Crazy Even For Fox

ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.


I feel bad for Zachary.


I disagree.

Has either of you ever spent some time in the comments section of any of their favorite sites, like Consortium News or The Intercept?

Many of those folks are as unhinged as any you'll find in Trump-land.

One of Consortium News's lead stories right now is about the bogus Seth Rich affair. Even after it was thoroughly debunked, they've issued no correction or commentary about the baseless-ness of the story.

South_Mountaineer said:


ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.



note my qualifier "nearly all."  I'm not naive enough to think there are no leftist conspiracy nuts who believe fake stories.  But what is the ratio of conservatives in this county who believe completely false stories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party to progressives who rely on equivalent left-leaning fake news?  It's got to be 100 times or 1000 times larger.  

drummerboy said:

I disagree.

Has either of you ever spent some time in the comments section of any of their favorite sites, like Consortium News or The Intercept?

Many of those folks are as unhinged as any you'll find in Trump-land.


One of Consortium News's lead stories right now is about the bogus Seth Rich affair. Even after it was thoroughly debunked, they've issued no correction or commentary about the baseless-ness of the story.

South_Mountaineer said:


ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.



Ailes's 17-yr-old son is vowing revenge on all Dad's accusers. A chip off the old blockhead.


Wait. A 17-yr-old son? Huh?





 During the Saturday funeral service for Fox News’ founder and former CEO Roger Ailes, his son reportedly made a point to threaten the people who had “betrayed” his father.
“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them, and hell is coming with me,” Zachary Ailes, 17, said during a speech at the service, according to Lifezette.



GL2 said:

 During the Saturday funeral service for Fox News’ founder and former CEO Roger Ailes, his son reportedly made a point to threaten the people who had “betrayed” his father.
“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them, and hell is coming with me,” Zachary Ailes, 17, said during a speech at the service, according to Lifezette.

At one time this would qualify as a terroristic threat, a felony. But we live in the Dark Ages now. Also have to add that until I read this I felt sorry that Zachary lost his dad. I have no sympathy for this demon spawn now.



GL2 said:

 During the Saturday funeral service for Fox News’ founder and former CEO Roger Ailes, his son reportedly made a point to threaten the people who had “betrayed” his father.
“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them, and hell is coming with me,” Zachary Ailes, 17, said during a speech at the service, according to Lifezette.

That's a line from the movie "Tombstone," and I'd like to think that no adult was aware that the young man was going to say something like that.

Reading Gabriel Sherman's tremendous biography of Ailes, you can see what type of effect he might have had on a son. Whether you agreed with his philosophy or not, he was very successful at what he tried to accomplish, and at was a point of his life where most people would develop a sense of satisfaction and perspective (at least until the scandal went public).

But Ailes didn't, he was obsessed with phantom threats, possibly because he knew that the truth might come out one day, but seeing potential assassins everywhere. He reinforced his office until it resembled a bulletproof fortress. He bought an estate specifically because of its proximity to West Point. He wasn't just paranoid about terrorists, but the LGBT activists, small-town newspaper editors and Hudson Valley folk singers that he thought were out to get him.

Of course, we all know that no one really "betrayed" Ailes, it's just that the truth finally caught up to him. However, any teenager who grew up with a domineering father like that might not see things clearly, particularly at a moment of grief.



Gee, I feel so much better now...

-s.


I take it back. I don't feel bad for Zachary.

GL2 said:

 During the Saturday funeral service for Fox News’ founder and former CEO Roger Ailes, his son reportedly made a point to threaten the people who had “betrayed” his father.
“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them, and hell is coming with me,” Zachary Ailes, 17, said during a speech at the service, according to Lifezette.



I have no data , so I'm not gonna speculate on ratios - all I can say is that I've been very distressed over the past 2 years to read such drivel coming out of the left. From multiple sources.  It strikes me as quantitatively different now. i.e. - much more craziness than before.


I've mentioned Consortium News before. I've been reading that site for many, many years. Robert Parry, the founder, is a good journalist, I think.

But if you look at it these days, it's a caricature of the left. For every good article there's one screaming about the New McCarthyism brought on by RussiaTrump. Or insisting that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. Or that the DNC is evil.And like I said earlier - Seth Rich. Just lame-brained, detached-from-reality nonsense.

The far(ther) left needs to get it's sh!t together.


ml1 said:

note my qualifier "nearly all."  I'm not naive enough to think there are no leftist conspiracy nuts who believe fake stories.  But what is the ratio of conservatives in this county who believe completely false stories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party to progressives who rely on equivalent left-leaning fake news?  It's got to be 100 times or 1000 times larger.  
drummerboy said:

I disagree.

Has either of you ever spent some time in the comments section of any of their favorite sites, like Consortium News or The Intercept?

Many of those folks are as unhinged as any you'll find in Trump-land.


One of Consortium News's lead stories right now is about the bogus Seth Rich affair. Even after it was thoroughly debunked, they've issued no correction or commentary about the baseless-ness of the story.

South_Mountaineer said:


ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.



I don't read any of those sites, so I don't know how crazy the articles are.  But I think the mainstream left as represented by the likes of MSNBC is behaving worse in terms of their influence, and their willingness to promote conspiracy theories.  They glom onto any Trump/Russia story and hype it to the hilt regardless of how much evidence there is.  Fact is, there is no solid evidence thus far that the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to damage Clinton's campaign.  Just because someone is a crazy conspiracy theorist, it doesn't mean aspects of their premise might not be true.  News organizations IMHO are indeed hyping a new Cold War without solid evidence.

Trump is fighting too hard to cover up his and his campaign's involvements in Russia for me to believe there's nothing there.  But there are a lot of mainstream people on the left who go way beyond that and have already swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that the Russians "hacked the election."  It's just as likely (more likely imho) that Trump and his cronies were involved in shady business deals with Russians as it is that they were recruiting Russian help to sway the election.

drummerboy said:

I have no data , so I'm not gonna speculate on ratios - all I can say is that I've been very distressed over the past 2 years to read such drivel coming out of the left. From multiple sources.  It strikes me as quantitatively different now. i.e. - much more craziness than before.




I've mentioned Consortium News before. I've been reading that site for many, many years. Robert Parry, the founder, is a good journalist, I think.


But if you look at it these days, it's a caricature of the left. For every good article there's one screaming about the New McCarthyism brought on by RussiaTrump. Or insisting that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. Or that the DNC is evil.And like I said earlier - Seth Rich. Just lame-brained, detached-from-reality nonsense.

The far(ther) left needs to get it's sh!t together.




ml1 said:

note my qualifier "nearly all."  I'm not naive enough to think there are no leftist conspiracy nuts who believe fake stories.  But what is the ratio of conservatives in this county who believe completely false stories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party to progressives who rely on equivalent left-leaning fake news?  It's got to be 100 times or 1000 times larger.  
drummerboy said:

I disagree.

Has either of you ever spent some time in the comments section of any of their favorite sites, like Consortium News or The Intercept?

Many of those folks are as unhinged as any you'll find in Trump-land.


One of Consortium News's lead stories right now is about the bogus Seth Rich affair. Even after it was thoroughly debunked, they've issued no correction or commentary about the baseless-ness of the story.

South_Mountaineer said:


ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.




wharfrat said:



GL2 said:

 During the Saturday funeral service for Fox News’ founder and former CEO Roger Ailes, his son reportedly made a point to threaten the people who had “betrayed” his father.
“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them, and hell is coming with me,” Zachary Ailes, 17, said during a speech at the service, according to Lifezette.

At one time this would qualify as a terroristic threat, a felony. But we live in the Dark Ages now. Also have to add that until I read this I felt sorry that Zachary lost his dad. I have no sympathy for this demon spawn now.

Imagine the size of the chip on this kid's shoulder as he grows up rich and angry.


yeah, agreed. I've got no love for most of MSNBC these days, or most MSM organs. But at least there's more there there concerning RussiaTrump than there was for EmailHillary.

But even given that, I find the amount of apology offered by the farther left for Trump and the ire directed to people under the name of New-McCarthyism to be quite disheartening and wrong-headed.


ml1 said:

I don't read any of those sites, so I don't know how crazy the articles are.  But I think the mainstream left as represented by the likes of MSNBC is behaving worse in terms of their influence, and their willingness to promote conspiracy theories.  They glom onto any Trump/Russia story and hype it to the hilt regardless of how much evidence there is.  Fact is, there is no solid evidence thus far that the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to damage Clinton's campaign.  Just because someone is a crazy conspiracy theorist, it doesn't mean aspects of their premise might not be true.  News organizations IMHO are indeed hyping a new Cold War without solid evidence.

Trump is fighting too hard to cover up his and his campaign's involvements in Russia for me to believe there's nothing there.  But there are a lot of mainstream people on the left who go way beyond that and have already swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that the Russians "hacked the election."  It's just as likely (more likely imho) that Trump and his cronies were involved in shady business deals with Russians as it is that they were recruiting Russian help to sway the election.
drummerboy said:

I have no data , so I'm not gonna speculate on ratios - all I can say is that I've been very distressed over the past 2 years to read such drivel coming out of the left. From multiple sources.  It strikes me as quantitatively different now. i.e. - much more craziness than before.




I've mentioned Consortium News before. I've been reading that site for many, many years. Robert Parry, the founder, is a good journalist, I think.


But if you look at it these days, it's a caricature of the left. For every good article there's one screaming about the New McCarthyism brought on by RussiaTrump. Or insisting that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. Or that the DNC is evil.And like I said earlier - Seth Rich. Just lame-brained, detached-from-reality nonsense.

The far(ther) left needs to get it's sh!t together.




ml1 said:

note my qualifier "nearly all."  I'm not naive enough to think there are no leftist conspiracy nuts who believe fake stories.  But what is the ratio of conservatives in this county who believe completely false stories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party to progressives who rely on equivalent left-leaning fake news?  It's got to be 100 times or 1000 times larger.  
drummerboy said:

I disagree.

Has either of you ever spent some time in the comments section of any of their favorite sites, like Consortium News or The Intercept?

Many of those folks are as unhinged as any you'll find in Trump-land.


One of Consortium News's lead stories right now is about the bogus Seth Rich affair. Even after it was thoroughly debunked, they've issued no correction or commentary about the baseless-ness of the story.

South_Mountaineer said:


ml1 said:

nearly all of the progressive anti-Hillary people came to their conclusions based on actual facts, not made-up pseudo-scandals.  She did actually vote to support the Iraq invasion.  She was also a strong supporter of the invasion of Libya.  She did actually often talk about a very militaristic foreign policy.  She in fact was connected to Wall Street.  None of those things stopped me from supporting her in '16.  But I can understand people who found her an unappealing candidate.  I wish they had realized how awful Trump was, and that even a hawkish neo-liberal Clinton would be a better choice than he was.  But they didn't come to their conclusions based on made-up stuff.

Agreed.  They came to their conclusion based on not considering the alternative.



Please trim your posts.


ml1 said:

Fact is, there is no solid evidence thus far that the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to damage Clinton's campaign.  Just because someone is a crazy conspiracy theorist, it doesn't mean aspects of their premise might not be true.  News organizations IMHO are indeed hyping a new Cold War without solid evidence.

If there were "solid evidence," we'd have indictments and/or arrests already. Fact is, all roads are pointing in that direction.

In the end, the goings on are not going to be tied up with a bow in a neat little box. The facts won't be straightforward, like a mugging—"Joe stopped John on the street at gunpoint and demanded he hand over his wallet." It won't be that simple. It will be messy and complex.


...and Sean's silly conspiracy theories seem to have become intolerable as Fox seeks cred.

Sean Hannity threaded the needle Tuesday night, telling his Fox News viewers that he would stop talking about a conspiracy theory surrounding the death of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich — but only because Rich's family asked him to.

And Hannity once again sought to tamp down speculation that he might leave the network, something he has now had to do at least three times since the fall.

Hannity is in a precarious position. His musings about Rich's murder are catnip for his audience, yet Fox News suddenly seems unwilling to abide them. Hannity has entertained the unsubstantiated notion that Rich was not killed in a robbery gone bad, as D.C. police claim, but rather was assassinated because he, not Russian operatives, provided DNC emails to WikiLeaks.


WaPo


More than once, Sean has been publicly duped by people who reach out to him on online hinting at a hot scoop that fits his show's world view. When the duper posts the interaction, it's amazing how credulous Sean is (when it's something he wants to believe) and even more shocking that he is engaging in these conversations himself.



TV person vulnerable to having the wool pulled over their eyes. What a shock.



Gilgul said:

TV person vulnerable to having the wool pulled over their eyes. What a shock.

Edit: "Fox" TV person... ."


Sean flipped out this morning on Twitter...seems Soros is conspiring against him again. Sean packs heat wherever he goes. "Paranoia strikes deep..."


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.