Imagine if Fox turned on Trump. What would his followers watch then?
breitbart
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/134246/e65aa9fe-ff21-454a-83f0-0beba03faf24/image.png
When you nut but she's still sucking
Holy SHIT
When you get indicted and they still fuckin'.
Personally. I feel like most Fox News viewers support Fox News more then their own Party. They will turn on Trump when Fox News does.
Mark Taylor.
Shit you not, this guy basically has a Youtube channel dedicated to convincing MAGA-believing muppets that Trump was put into office by God himself.
I think you have it backwards.
I seriously doubt that. Trumpeteers are their own breed.
Fox News hated on Trump when they thought he had no chance. So it's viewers also hated him. But when they started turning around in Trumps favor their viewers started liking him. I dunno it's just how I am seeing it. But we'll see.
Sinclair Broadcasting.
No joke.
so you're saying Fox had to change their narrative because republicans liked Trump despite their reporting
that's what I'm saying
Trump is sincerely the most popular republican politician in the country among republicans by a wide, wide margin
A lot of Fox viewers don't like Napolitano because he's more libertarian and has always been critical of Trump. He's one of the pundits that are making the further right Fox viewers say "Fox is getting too liberal!"
believe it or not.
I mean, the fuckwit himself boasted in the election that "durr im not going to heaven if i dont win the election"
Although I'm still waiting on THE story, things have been moving SO FAST since the midterms.
“My view is that he can be indicted but cannot be prosecuted until leaving office because the disruption to the government of the prosecution would be far more than the Constitution tolerates,” Napolitano said.
So if he doesn't get impeached or denied of his nomination until then, does that mean in 2020 he either becomes president again or goes to trial?
Damn thats wild!
The Fox Flip is my favourite thing about this whole thing.
That's exactly what it means, yes. If he uses the Presidency as a shield then he only has that shield for as long as he remains President and for as long as that rule remains in effect.
A reminder here, though, that this is a policy set in place by the Department of Justice. Policies are subject to the whims of Congress, certainly, but they are also subject to administrative control. What I mean by this is that if this thing gets too hot, the Justice Department could simply decide to reverse that policy at the drop of a hat and allow the President to be indicted -- even without Congress' authorization. Whether Congress, then, would remove the President is up to Congress. We could at that point be in the position where, even as the President is sentenced to serve in Jail or refuses to appear in Court to defend himself, Congress refuses to impeach and now the Justice Department is left to enforce their ruling on the President while the Legislative and Executive branches refuse to be held accountable to the Judicial.
Would the Secret Service then arrest the President? Would the Legislative attempt to arrest the head of the Judiciary for Treason? These are questions that we might have answers to depending on whether or not it becomes too intolerable for the Justice Department to not allow Justice and the Rule of Law to be enforced -- lest they by inaction effectively allow for Presidential Administrations to be above the law.
What I'm saying is that they could reverse it -- and we could find ourselves in a matter of weeks looking at Washington D.C. literally being fought over by all three branches of our Government because they are refusing to work together. It'd be like a Civil War -- except limited expressly to the White House and its surrounding areas.
The more I watch people dissect the deeper parts of politics and the laws that apply to them, the more politics sounds like a fucked-up game of Calvinball.
Every since the special counsel was appointed, Trump has been doing the math in his head. He knows that if he can secure a second term, and either survive impeachment through to 2024 or use a complicit legislative branch to shield himself from impeachment altogether, he will likely remain outside of a jail cell for the rest of his life. During that time he may be indicted, but the number and complexity of his crimes, combined with his ability to pay almost any bail amount, means that he could essentially run out the clock a free man until his heart stops beating.
If he loses re-election in 2020 however, or if he is successfully impeached, that's a different story altogether. Trump would undoubtedly convicted and sentence to life in prison, his assets seized, his business empire demolished, and his name and legacy disgraced forever. His one and only priority right now is preventing this outcome at any cost, regardless of the damage he wreaks on the country.
Don't count on Republicans to abandon Trump. They can't, and even if they could they wouldn't. By and large the party will stand by him until the bitter end. Only when the damage to the government and the country become so severe and unprecedented, then maybe a handful of Republicans will peel off, and maybe it will be enough for impeachment. But don't count on it,
At the end of the day, it's up to us to demand an accountable government. We've been moving away from democracy for decades. We need to reverse that trend while we still can.
"When you get indicted but your brain dead followers keep followin.
The system works. It just also only works when everyone agrees to play 'by the rules'.
The Founding Fathers basically saw all three branches of our government as their 'own baseball team' and so of course they would fight each other and that fight would therefore keep everyone in check because everyone has a target painted on everyone else's back. What they didn't plan for was an overarching party effectively 'taking control of' multiple branches at a time -- and then refusing to prosecute or control itself while holding just enough power that it can deny all legitimate means of rules enforcement.
This is like if a team in the MLB staffed its players in the announcement box, the stands, the referees, and the rules council for the game -- then it played a shitty game and, by the rules, should be forced to declare that game a Loss -- but instead declares it a Victory. The rules worked in theory up until the point they were compromised by the fact that there were just enough people in just enough positions that they could 'ignore the rules'. Further, if they can defuse resistance by saying 'this is what the fans want' because they have brainwashed a small but extremely vocal part of the MLB fanbase to endorse whatever they do literally no matter what then the rules cease to matter for more than appearances.
To bring the analogy back home, it's a fucked up game of Calvinball because the people in charge of enforcing the rules are enforcing them selectively and paristanly, without much sense of justice or 'awareness' of the 'issues' people are bringing up with how they're running the league. The issue isn't with the rules or the game -- the issue is with the people in charge of enforcing the rules and ensuring a fair game.
I believe they will continue to watch and eat up everything fox news tells them.
meh what does fox know anyways.
how to manipulate their base
Remember a little while back when Trump requested that people stop using that one picture of him with his mouth open that made him look stupid? I've noticed that since then, every single news site has started exclusively using pictures of Trump taken mid-vowel sound.
...wonder if anyone can get him to say the word "sequoia"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
