Georgia judge let’s all white Trump defendants go, jails black guy

A little anecdote illustrating the differences between the cable "news" networks. Around 10 days ago I was flipping between the different networks. CNN had a real news story on the Maui wildfires; the MSNBC opinion host (don't recall exactly which one, it may have been Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner or Rachel Maddow) was discussing the Trump indictments while the Fox (not really) News, Newsmax and OAN stars were discussing the Hunter Biden hearings. Although extremely anecdotal and only a point in time I think that says it all.

 

I think most people refer to the evening “entertainment” shows when referring to network biases and differences. The business coverage by both (CNBC and Fox Business) is pretty good and straight shooting, altho some of Fox Business’ guests can be a little politically based.

On a long evening car ride two weeks ago I kept flipping back and forth between MSNBC and FOX, and it went something like this:

MSNBC: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Maui fire, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, spectacular Biden economy, Trump, Trump, Tump.

Fox News: Biden crime family, Biden crime family, Biden crime family, Biden crime family, Maui fire, Biden crime family, Biden crime family, Biden crime family, poor victimized Trump, Biden crime family.

It was nauseating on both sides so I just switched over to Coffee House and sang along with bad cover bands.

My $0.02 based on my own highly empirical research.

 

So, lemme make sure I understand. Because you can cite two examples: one where she filed a RICO case against teachers and another against a group of rap artists, that means she cannot be politically motivated against Trump and/or his co-defendants? Does that mean if I prosecute two white people, I can never be considered a racist prosecutor? That's sound logic right there, bro. It's almost like you have to make up a narrative to refute what @UFLawyer said about Willis, because the truth is she's probably working against President Trump. I know you're smarter than this, also.

 

Now this is more like it. Spot on. It's WWE level entertainment these days: Fox, CNN, MSNBC.. The worst part of them all is when they try to be comedic. Gutfeld annoys the hell out of me. They are also extensions of the two major political parties as well. Fox got their talking points straight from the Bush White House. MSNBC from the Obama White House and so on..

You can still learn bits and pieces of useful info here and there and it's always good to know what the other side's "narrative" is, but yeah, nauseating is accurate.

 

Used how? The only people who will fall for the "optics ignoring context" game are those who weren't going to vote for Democrats anyway. I just don't see how you think it will be leveraged. I'm not saying that Democrats are completely insulated from optics, but they would tend to believe optics without context if it supports their biases. This does not align with Democratic ideas and principles, so it has no chance of being relevant. Coming from right wing sources, it would almost immediately be ignored, and I can tell you that my group of friends who routinely pay attention to and discuss politics, I'm probably the only one who even heard of this because I come to this forum. And I can guarantee you that none of them would fall for the optics on this. It's a weak argument.

 

LOL Fox business is 20% business and 80% politics. When they do get around to business it’s so superficial. No in depth analysis most of the hosts and. “Analysts” don’t know what they’re talking about. I get why though, their audience is illiterate when it comes to financial news. If they did a business show they’d be lost. FBN is a joke in comparison to Bloomberg and CNBC.

 

I'm certain you at least do understand logic since you base your straw man on something the poster did not claim : he did not state she could not be politically motivated, he gave ex. of cases where she likely was not. You jump to false assumptions using unsound logic, while claiming that poster did. Typical, to establish your narrative, Be better.

 

I’m not making up a narrative at all, you’re just incapable of seeing beyond your partisan blinders. I was citing information that might undercut the alleged narrative that he cited, while admitting he didn’t know for sure.

Other than indicting Trump what evidence do you have that she is allegedly a partisan hack? Perhaps he actually did something wrong and should be prosecuted for it, and it’s not partisan at all. But that is likely inconceivable to you. .

 

Someone else may have mentioned this, but there's a black woman too.

 

Now THAT was funny!

 

Hey just so you know, I’m black. I might know a thing about being a black voter. To answer your question, no we are not simple minded and understand context and nuance when situations are presented to us. You are pretending to be in the side of the black voter, but in reality, you are condescending and calling us stupid.

 

Does it matter? If yes, which race do you claim?

 

It's happened again. I still find it funny.

Poster: If you knew anything about depositions
Other Poster: I've been a part of over a hundred depositions.

Poster: Let me tell you about lawyering
Other Poster: I've been an attorney for 25 years

Poster: I can tell you don't know anything about the military
Other Poster: I'm active duty

Poster: Do you think black people will X
Other Poster: I'm black

 

No, I didn’t. You brought up race talking about specifically how black families and voters would feel… somewhat implying that I had no idea. I indicated my race to nip that in the bud.

 

I'm guessing that next, he'll pedantically ask you whether you speak for all black people (conveniently ignoring the attempts he made to do just that upthread).