Jump to content

Fox News Sunday - Chris Wallace Interviews Donald Trump 7/19


immamac

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I would like to know why Fox News would do a hard interview.  

Trump will takeover OAN and FOX will, for the first time, have a competitor for their devoted audience. Trump is hammering FOX on twitter to get in the first punches; FOX is not a soft organization, so they are striking back with one hand while stroking Trump's face with the other.

That's my feeling. I think Trump's intent in running for office was to start the Trump Network. It was the worst case scenario for him. How blackly amusing that he lost the popular vote but still landed in the White House.

One day, this will make a brilliant limited series on HBO, Netflix, or Amazon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kinda fucking sadist are you, you're gonna go back and rewatch this shit on streaming?  

We really will have diverging histories in this country.  I mean, we always have, but there was at least a common set of textbooks.  I believe schools and textbooks will be chosen based on a "Pro-Trump" interpretation of U.S. History from 2015 to 2021, and then a factual interpretation of U.S. History over that timeperiod.  

Not sure how it was in Texas, but in Illinois...we had a section of our freshman English class where they taught "the Bible as Literature."  Any parent could opt their kid out of that month-long section, instead of you'd just go to the library and cafeteria and have study hall.  I think for many schools, particularly here in the South, there'll be sections of U.S. History where an alternative history of how Trump saved America and was wrongfully defeated in 2020 will be inserted and any kid that doesn't like it can go to the cafeteria and read quietly to themselves.  And those kids will be shunned by the bullies, just as the kids that didn't want to read the bible in school were made fun of.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, F250 said:

Maybe that is what he meant but in reality nothing about war is beautiful. The Commander and Chief has the power to wage war and should be more thoughtful when discussing it.

 

"An aggressive war is the great crime against everything good in the world. A defensive war, which must necessarily turn aggressive at the earliest moment is the great counter crime….We never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified is not a crime. Ask the infantry and the dead." - Hemingway

Well of course not. The guy has very poor verbal skills.  My comment was pretty much tongue in cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, F250 said:

Maybe that is what he meant but in reality nothing about war is beautiful. The Commander and Chief has the power to wage war and should be more thoughtful when discussing it.

 

"An aggressive war is the great crime against everything good in the world. A defensive war, which must necessarily turn aggressive at the earliest moment is the great counter crime….We never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified is not a crime. Ask the infantry and the dead." - Hemingway

What the hell would Ernest Hemingway know about war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on Texags

ABATTBQ87
 
 
 
10:52a 
 
In reply to hairloom
 
hairloom said:
Trump is a compulsive liar!


List 5 specific, verified lies that Trump has made in 2020
OverSeas AG
 
 
 
 
11:35a 
 
In reply to SUag
 

I agree on truth.  

So when are your hero's going to admit the truth of cv-19, the impeachment, antifa, riots, identify politics, etc?

It is literally in front of everyone's eyes, but the left pretends there is nothing to it.
 

Sterling82
 
 
1:17p 
 
I didn't watch because I tuned out on Chris Wallace long ago. Repeatedly letting libs lie without being called on it did it for me. Wallace is the old style conservative who thinks he has to placate the left so they'll continue to talk to him. Ms. Hawg said Wallace was unprepared...exactly what my wife said. Therefore that has to be true.
 


 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WALLACE:  But -- but this isn't burning embers, sir? This is a forest fire.

TRUMP:  No, no. But I don't say -- I say flames, we'll put out the flames. And we'll put out in some cases just burning embers. We also have burning embers. We have embers and we do have flames. Florida became more flame like, but it's -- it's going to be under control.

Is it bad that I read the President of the United States' transcripts in Carl Spackler's voice, "We have embers.  We have flames, too.  Flames and embers, embers probably be better for me you know.  Either way, buddies for life, I say."  

And one of you Trumpers tell me what "became more flame like" means?  Is that on the x-axis or the y-axis?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I didn't watch because I tuned out on Chris Wallace long ago. Repeatedly letting libs lie without being called on it did it for me. Wallace is the old style conservative who thinks he has to placate the left so they'll continue to talk to him.

Quintessential aggy. Wallace called out Trump on his tweets slamming him and gave rebuttal evidence that disproved every claim. Of course, if you didn't watch you don't have to acknowledge.

Kinda like not testing gives you better numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean I'm scared shitless that he thinks he has been given some power by the supreme court. Who is going to force him to comply with the supreme court rulings? Is he saying that he can defy the supreme court with no negative consequence? That's what I heard. He may actually be right, if no one is going to force him to comply with supreme court rulings then we are totally fucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean I'm scared shitless that he thinks he has been given some power by the supreme court. Who is going to force him to comply with the supreme court rulings? Is he saying that he can defy the supreme court with no negative consequence? That's what I heard. He may actually be right, if no one is going to force him to comply with supreme court rulings then we are totally fucked. 

I have no fucking idea what is swirling around his syphilitic brain. I'm sure his minions are working on some batshit insane interpretation of a ruling. They'll get away with whatever it is until a court battle, but nobody knows what it is yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

HAHAHAHAHA

 

 

seriously, eric? He's 77, a discussion on possible cognitive decline is certainly a valid concern.  But you don't send out the dumbest member of the administration to tweet this concern out to America.  when Hillary raised questions about Trump's business ethics during the last campaign, she didn't have Roger Clinton pose the question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little underwhelming, but overall, wallace did a relatively decent job of not allowing trump to run the interview, which was clearly his intent.

i think my favorite part was trump reading through the biden-bernie proclamation trying to find "defund the police" which wasn't even a thing during the primaries, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

wait, is that seriously real? that's the test he "aced?"

Are you really that surprised? It's a test that he aced, of course it comes out the test is actually on a 3rd grade level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, immamac said:

No I think he's saying the supreme court doesn't matter and the president has absolute power. 

I could be wrong, but I took it as him saying that since the Court upheld DACA, it gives him the power to bypass Congress and redo health care through executive order.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...