CNN Hot Takes and Mis-Information
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Saturday Schadenfreude: CNN aired an amazing confrontation that devastated Randi Weingarten
By Thomas LifsonAs Fox News moves leftward, CNN, the sick man of cable news, just aired a segment that would hearten any alienated FNC viewers that happened to catch it. Is this a portent of things to come?
The New York Post reports on the confrontation that must have shocked Randi Weingarten, the head of the AFT who this past week falsely claimed to a congressional committee that she had fought every day to reopen schools, when, in fact, she and her union were the major force keeping them closed. A paid CNN commentator, Scott Jennngs, delivered the truth bomb.
Epic – Congressman Byron Donalds Drops the Atomic Sledgehammer of Truth on CNN Panel
May 11, 2023 | Sundance | 410 Comments
Congressman Byron Donalds represents Southwest Florida CD-19; he comes from good stock. After the CNN attack townhall in New Hampshire last night, Donalds appeared on a CNN panel to discuss.
Prior to Donalds joining the panel, the six other panelists were echo-chambering their narrative talking points without rebuttal. Donalds put that nonsense to rest. However, beyond the epic pushback, notice how the panel reacts to having their narrative challenged; this should be very familiar to people.
Notice how when confronted by an opposing viewpoint the panel uses a familiar tactic. Instead of discussing the policy points, the issues at the heart of the policy positions, the panel instead begins to question the person confronting them. “Do you want Ukraine to win,” is one question. “Do you accept the results of the 2020 election” is another.
The CNN panel approach is to make the person pushing back become the issue, because the points raised are antithetical to their belief system. This method of distraction is straight from the Alinsky rulebook about debating opposition. Byron Donalds succeeds because he doesn’t engage the nonsense.
CNN Chief Reprimands Reporter Oliver Darcy for Bashing Network’s Trump Town Hall, Leaving Him ‘Visibly Shaken’
Puck News‘s Dylan Byers first reported the meeting Friday, writing:
Byers wrote that “Darcy stood by his work and pushed back on the ‘emotional’ characterization” but that two sources had described Darcy as “visibly shaken.”
“They put the fear of God into him,” Byers reported.
Darcy had written in the piece: “It’s hard to see how America was served by the spectacle of lies that aired on CNN Wednesday evening,” adding:
He then included reactions from other reporters slamming the town hall.
Darcy is not the only CNN employee reportedly unhappy about the town hall, which saw Trump dominate the stage as he was cheered on by supporters in the audience.
A “prominent” on-air CNN talent called the town hall a “total debacle,” adding, according to Mediate:
The Libs/CNN knew they were in trouble when Trump got a standing O when he walked out on the stage.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Again, didn't watch it but - was the whole thing different than say, a Hannity interview? Was the CNN person more hostile?
Nonetheless, folks such as TikToker Samuel Ruiz have taken to social media to encourage the protest.
“Just shut down for a day, let them know that your taco stand is not going to be open, your yard isn’t going to get mowed, your roof is not going to get built,” Ruiz said in one video. “Sooner or later if we do not speak up or we allow this kind of targeting in a certain community it could spread through the whole country.”
Have you ever noticed that leftists only value illegal aliens because they provide cheap labor? It’s a bit degrading.
As for Ruiz’s worries that the Florida law could become national, that depends if Republicans decide to pursue policies that work at the national level. Many in the GOP establishment support amnesty and letting illicit workers stay.
Good They can go back home
'This is PREPOSTEROUS!' Outraged CNN commentator slams DoJ for five year investigation into Hunter Biden over tax, money laundering and gun allegations: Says probe should have taken five weeks
- Elie Honig, a former Manhattan assistant US attorney who now works as senior legal analyst for CNN, on Monday spoke about the Hunter Biden investigation
- Honig said he was shocked that it had taken the Justice Department five years to investigate the 53-year-old son of the president
- Hunter Biden is accused of lying about his drug use on a 2018 gun permit application, and of potential tax fraud and influence peddling
The DOJ has been investigating Joe Biden's 53-year-old son over possible violations of tax and money laundering laws, related to his business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere since 2018.
The department is also looking into whether he lied on a 2018 gun permit application, where he confirmed he was not taking drugs.
Honig said the seemingly endless investigation was 'beyond anything' he has ever seen.
The Struggle Is Real: Jake Tapper Tries Coping as Trump Miami Birthday Celebration Airs on CNN
Though facing felony charges is a serious matter, in the aftermath of his appearance at the court Trump was all smiles, stopping by the famed Cafe Versailles Cuban restaurant, where supporters prayed for him and even sang happy birthday (Trump’s 77th birthday is Wednesday) at one point, as we also reported.
Hilariously, CNN left-wing reporter Jake Tapper, who we’ve been reliably informed by Jake Tapper himself is a Very Principled Journalist™, was on air along with two of his equally-somber looking colleagues when CNN decided to show the footage of Trump at the restaurant being showered with attention, which greatly fauxfended Tapper:
Watch (Tapper’s comments start at the :40 mark):
Tapper might want to try harder at learning to cope, because the DOJ’s stunt is already backfiring, with support for Trump rising higher as more and more fed up people see right through what it appears Biden’s DOJ is trying to do just 18 months before Election Day.
CNN Rules Republicans Are the Enemy of Kids and Climate
The lawsuit merely singled out Montana Republicans and blamed them for the existence of fossil fuel. CNN called it “fascinating” and “such a great story.”
The case hinged on the following clause in the Montana state constitution: “The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.” Nate Bellinger, senior staff attorney for Our Children’s Trust claimed that fossil fuel-induced climate change forfeited the young people’s right to a healthful environment.
Weir dramatized the plight of the young people and villainized Republicans for not banning fossil fuels:
He went on to exaggerate the effect of Montana’s fossil fuels on the environment and portrayed Republicans as willfully letting nature decay. He never mentioned inflation and the economic fallout Americans would face if the government banned fossil fuels.
Despite enthusiastic coverage of the lawsuit, He admitted that the trial would not better the environment or change policies. It was merely a public complaint against Montana for a global issue. “Judge Cathy Sealy doesn't have the power to shut down any extraction or usage of fossil fuels,” he admitted, “but a judgment for the young plaintiffs could set a powerful precedent for Our Children's Trust.”
That precedent would double as anti-Republican and pro-government regulation propaganda.
Weir even seemed to taunt the Republicans:
Instead of objectively reporting both sides of the trial, Weir asserted the only rebuttal to the young people’s suit was to reject the science or remove the clause. He continued, “But its - really is a tipping point as people try to use the courts to get some action because legislations have done nothing.”
Amanpour Teams Up With Obama To Warn That The GOP Threatens Democracy
Early on in the interview, Obama described U.S. institutions as “creaky” from the strain of allegedly anti-democratic sentiment. Amanpour took that idea and ran with it, “So, let's ask about the creaky or not institutions in the United States. The spectacle of a former president being federally indicted, how is the rest of the world, the democratic world, maybe even the non-democratic world, meant to interpret that indictment and, indeed, the fact that a indictee is running, is able to run for the highest office in the land, maybe even the world?”
For his part, Obama declared it “less than ideal, but the fact that we have a former president who is having to answer to charges brought by prosecutors, does uphold the basic notion that nobody is above the law. And the allegations will now be sorted out through a court process.”
More concerning for Obama was “gerrymandering” and “trying to silence critics through changes in legislative process, whether it's attempts to intimidate the press,” whatever that means.
Later in the program, Amanpour continued with the theme that Republicans are horrible:
Cracking himself up, Obama replied, “No. There’s no evidence that's where their head is at right now.”
When asked to discuss the cases before the Supreme Court, Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic focused on the two cases affecting students, presenting both policies as black and white:
Biskupic only mentioned the positives of affirmative action, focusing on black and Hispanic students whom the policy favors. She ignored the argument of Asian and white students facing college rejections because they were not a certain skin tone.
She also falsely blamed the lawsuit on conservatives when the Students for Fair Admissions filed both lawsuits, one against Harvard on behalf of Asian Americans and the other against the University of North Carolina on behalf of white and Asian Americans.
newsbusters.org
Biskupic only mentioned the positives of affirmative action, focusing on black and Hispanic students whom the policy favors. She ignored the argument of Asian and white students facing college rejections because they were not a certain skin tone.
She also falsely blamed the lawsuit on conservatives when the Students for Fair Admissions filed both lawsuits, one against Harvard on behalf of Asian Americans and the other against the University of North Carolina on behalf of white and Asian Americans.
CNN Prepares Itself for SCOTUS to Disappoint Them With Higher Ed. Cases
Tuesday’s CNN This Morning anticipated the Supreme Court would rule against a
Liz Cheney: Our Politics Created a Situation Where ‘We’re Electing Idiots’
Cheney said, “What we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots. And so, I don’t look at it through the lens of, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do. I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”
Political commentator Margaret Hoover said, “Yeah she’s right. Probably what she would have gotten to in the next breath is why are we electing idiots. Part of the problem is we have this closed partisan primary process particularly on the Republican side.”
She continued, “If you look at the Republicans who survived in the last election who voted to convict Donald Trump, Lisa Murkowski, for example, or the two House Republicans that voted to impeach that survived, all of them came from states that have passed some kind of voting reform, some kind of electoral reform that allows for the primary process to play to a broader group of Americans not a closed ideological extreme base of a party.”
CNN reporter and anchor Abby Phillip’s segment on this subject unexpectedly ended once facts were presented by Kenny Xu of Students for Fair Admissions. We all know why that happened, folks (via The Blaze):
When Phillip tried to say the standards weren’t lowered, Xu whipped out data on SAT scores and admission rates, and the CNN host quickly fled to the bunker. Xu is right. Thomas Sowell explained this glaring problem with affirmative action in front of a US Senate committee, adding that these protocols often set up these applicants for failure.
When Phillip tried to say the standards weren’t lowered, Xu whipped out data on SAT scores and admission rates, and the CNN host quickly fled to the bunker. Xu is right. Thomas Sowell explained this glaring problem with affirmative action in front of a US Senate committee, adding that these protocols often set up these applicants for failure.
