this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
525 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19232 readers
3839 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Even though he’s entitled to his opinions, he’s not entitled to his own set of facts"

During a broadcast of Donald Trump's speech at a "Get Out the Vote" rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina on Friday evening, Fox News host Neil Cavuto cut into the footage to point out inaccuracies in what was being said by the former president and 2024 Republican frontrunner.

Taking issue with Trump claiming credit for the market going up while, in the same breath, blaming Biden for inflated gas prices and whatever else, Cavuto said, "We'll continue monitoring the president's remarks and I mean no offense to him or some of you who might want to continue to hear him, but I did have to say that even though the former president is entitled to his opinions, he's not entitled to his own set of facts."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 140 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Wow....absolutely blown away. I literally never thought I'd see journalistic integrity from anyone even loosely associated with FauxNews...

[–] [email protected] 89 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The dominion lawsuit has them scared, rightfully so

[–] CaptainSpaceman 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They know trump isnt as popular as in 2016, and are erring on the side of caution as well

[–] deweydecibel 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They don't care about his overall popularity, they only care about his popularity with their viewing demographic, and he's as popular with that demo as he's ever been. More so, honestly.

Remember Trump won more votes in 2020 than 2016, and his popular vote percentage rose by 0.7%. The fact he still had that much after 4 years of his shit tells you everything you need to know about these voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kamenlady 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I read: "The Dominion" and DS9 instantly took over my mind.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

If only Jeffrey Combs would come take Trump to another quadrant of the galaxy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

My understanding is they could play all the videos of Trump saying bullshit they want, just not assert it themselves. They could repeat it but be careful to say “Person x alleges this” rather than stating mistruths as fact.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago

Fox news' reporters have always been reasonable, maybe on the low end of reasonable, but reasonable. The thing that makes Fox as a network awful is their opinion people, and how much they blur the line between their opinion people and their reporters.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Could be opportunism. Fox senses that Trump might go to prison or get barred from the election in another way, and so they either prepare endorsing a different candidate or are simply cautious.

But it's journalism by accident at best.

[–] VindictiveJudge 13 points 9 months ago

Fox never actually wanted Trump, but they radicalized their viewers too much. They tried to criticize him before while he was president, but each time they did their ratings went down and OAN's went up.

[–] Jaderick 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t necessarily call it integrity. I think Faux News has realized they created a monster that lost them a ton of viewers to even worse garbage at Newsmax. They’re trying to walk it all back now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RestrictedAccount 6 points 9 months ago

They ought to know that since they were first to call Arizona for Biden, they will be first against the wall if he is re-elected

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 129 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Cavuto went on to shoot down his claim that gas prices are at $6 a gallon, sourcing the real price as being an average of $3.26 a gallon.

Good. I’m so sick of the wild bullshit like that this baboon makes up. Gas is around 2.80 where I live which seems quite cheap given that it was that price 20 years ago and everything else has gone up so much. Then, of course, there’s the fact a lot of people are super-confused about that presidents don’t set the price of gas.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Back in the day if you couldn't nail the price of a gallon of milk you were an out of touch elite. Trump hasn't bought gas himself in decades I'm sure. That's the lesson people should take from this.

[–] Everythingispenguins 32 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Finally I made it to the upper crust. I have no idea what a gallon of milk costs. Take that everyone making less than 40 a year.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Next milestone? Circular driveway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

It's one gallon of milk, Michael. What could it cost, $10?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xantoxis 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

He started out with, what was it, 10 million dollars? I don't think he's ever bought gas in person. If you look at his business dealings, you start to wonder if he's ever paid for anything in any transaction at any point in his life.

EDIT: Wait! I forgot about Stormy Daniels.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

people are super-confused about that presidents don't set the price of gas.

It seems to be mostly one side of aisle that can't grasp it. Always the same line of "gas was so much cheaper under trump.."

and I always reply with "well you should have seen the gas prices under clinton, you would be a massive fan!".

It usually goes as well as you'd expect it to.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

But if gas prices go down under a Dem, they're killing jorbs and that's bad. /j

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] asteriskeverything 110 points 9 months ago (4 children)

WE NEEDED THIS IN 2015, It's too late now

[–] Badeendje 66 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The second best time to start is now.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

I think we're on the 2664th best time around now.

[–] asteriskeverything 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes there isn't going to be much course correction with the crazy trump train but they absolutely can start doing it for all the nutcase politicians he paved the way for and it will maybe make a difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Don't the networks only see dollar signs?

[–] assassin_aragorn 15 points 9 months ago

They might be worried after having to pay out their ass for parroting Trump on election denial.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho 75 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago

You think pointing out one specific contradiction will be a wake up call to anyone? It's hard to find a single sentence this sack of shit says that there isn't written or recorded evidence of him previously contradicting. He has spoken on both sides of literarly almost every topic he talks about at some point. He is the ultimate null, he cancels himself out and proves himself a worthless nothing over and over again.

[–] cultsuperstar 18 points 9 months ago

You know his base doesn't give a shit about that. He also said he'd take away all the guns and go through due process later but they don't remember nor care about that either.

[–] Candelestine 51 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Yeah, good luck with that.

Once you radicalize someone, it's not always so easy to bring them back. They can just migrate to even more hardcore Russian propaganda outlets.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's true. Time and time again these fools are radicalizing their base, and then when it gets out of hand they can't rein it in and it bites them.

Fox and a handful of right-wing politicians made radicalizing into a profitable business that's not regulated and freely available to anyone with no scruples and an imagination.

[–] Candelestine 11 points 9 months ago

Let's not forget social media companies and their algorithms that take advantage of human psychology to drive profits. Not helping.

[–] xantoxis 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The people that far gone started pissing on Fox News the day they said Biden won the election. Maybe even a little before that.

I get the distinct impression Fox thinks it can pivot to a different set of subscribers as its armchair-bound geriatric viewers die of Covid and old age.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Maybe. We'll have to see if this is a one time thing where the anchor is going to get yelled at and never done again, or if it flags a new editorial direction.

[–] kamenlady 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

As [email protected] pointed out, Tucker leaving Fox has done wonders for Fox, but ended up creating that more hardcore Russian propaganda outlet you are talking about. I mean, an interview with Putin, how much more Russian propaganda can it get?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, good on them- but it won’t make up for the decade of shilling they’ve done for him.

[–] nutsack 5 points 9 months ago

most of their anchors are continuing to do so

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Cavuto said...but I did have to say that even though the former president is entitled to his opinions, he's not entitled to his own set of facts."

Why does he insist on quoting liberals? ;)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snekerpimp 25 points 9 months ago

Republicans: 🤯

[–] Skanky 13 points 9 months ago

It's almost as if significantly large fines will change corporate behavior.

[–] sleepmode 11 points 9 months ago

This is a tactic to make them seem objective. Don’t believe it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Fired from Gestapo for excessive violence

load more comments
view more: next ›