Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Possible, but don't fret. CNN and MSNBC remain faithful water carriers for his opponent.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Donald Trump is a rainbow candidate. If there is a break off from Fox, and Trump is involved, this will be a focus.

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Unlikely. A TV network is an awful lot of infrastructure to assemble, and they'd be months away even if they found a turnkey situation they could buy out and re-name (like Al-Jazeera America) and would then have no presidential campaign to keep the brand momentum going. Starting early on the network, of course, undermines the whole enterprise - you couldn't hide the staffing up.

So yeah, someone might have suggested this to The Donald (probably the massively butthurt Roger Ailes, seeking a new billionaire patron), and he might have even agreed it would be a good idea, but executing it seems really difficult.

Fox News is smart, they know a sinking ship when they see one.

You'll still have blowhards like Hannity and Laura Ingraham that bought in wholesale and have boxed themselves in, and will be forced to go down with the ship, ruining what little credibility they had to begin with. Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point. If I have to hear that moron cite "health care savings accounts" as a be-all end-all solution to America's health care crisis, I'm going to lose it. Fortunately, the Olympics have kept my Fox News viewing to a minimum over the past couple weeks.

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point.

He has had that effect on me for years.

(08-18-2016 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point.

He has had that effect on me for years.

Didn't you hear? Trump is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with health care savings accounts!

Never mind the fact that a HSA is nothing more than a tax-advantaged account for funds used to pay for out of pocket expenses. Don't ask any questions regarding the details of what the actual, underlying policy will be. Those minor details are immaterial. HSAs are the answer. Hannity said so. You say health care, I say HSA and quickly change the subject.

Might as well say you are repealing and replacing Obamacare with Roth IRAs. It's so gross.

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Get ready for your OCTOBER surprise!

(08-18-2016 07:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point.

He has had that effect on me for years.

Didn't you hear? Trump is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with health care savings accounts!
Never mind the fact that a HSA is nothing more than a tax-advantaged account for funds used to pay for out of pocket expenses. Don't ask any questions regarding the details of what the actual, underlying policy will be. Those minor details are immaterial. HSAs are the answer. Hannity said so. You say health care, I say HSA and quickly change the subject.
Might as well say you are repealing and replacing Obamacare with Roth IRAs. It's so gross.

I think that coupling HSAs with high deductible policies is a wonderful policy. But it's not a replacement for Obamacare--which needs replacing.

Obamacare has the high deductible policies, but pretty much killed HSAs.

Obamacare is bankrupt & bankrupting the companies providing the policies. Not enough well & young signing up to pay for the unemployed/underemployed, sick & old - and premiums going up 40%+ across the board in Nov. HSAs are just one aspect of an insurance plan that can be sustained & Obamacare can't be sustained.

(08-18-2016 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point.

He has had that effect on me for years.

Didn't you hear? Trump is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with health care savings accounts!
Never mind the fact that a HSA is nothing more than a tax-advantaged account for funds used to pay for out of pocket expenses. Don't ask any questions regarding the details of what the actual, underlying policy will be. Those minor details are immaterial. HSAs are the answer. Hannity said so. You say health care, I say HSA and quickly change the subject.
Might as well say you are repealing and replacing Obamacare with Roth IRAs. It's so gross.

I think that coupling HSAs with high deductible policies is a wonderful policy. But it's not a replacement for Obamacare--which needs replacing.

Obamacare has the high deductible policies, but pretty much killed HSAs.

I agree, but what are the details? There's a reason they are so vague on the issue. My suspicion is there are no details.

(08-18-2016 07:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Obamacare is bankrupt & bankrupting the companies providing the policies. Not enough well & young signing up to pay for the unemployed/underemployed, sick & old - and premiums going up 40%+ across the board in Nov. HSAs are just one aspect of an insurance plan that can be sustained & Obamacare can't be sustained.

High-deductible plans can exist with or without HSAs attached to them. Simply saying "HSAs" (Hannity's view) every time health care is brought up, is not an acceptable position on health care reform. Neither is "Get rid of the lines" (Trump's view).

(08-18-2016 08:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Hannity makes me sick to my stomach are this point.

He has had that effect on me for years.

Didn't you hear? Trump is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with health care savings accounts!
Never mind the fact that a HSA is nothing more than a tax-advantaged account for funds used to pay for out of pocket expenses. Don't ask any questions regarding the details of what the actual, underlying policy will be. Those minor details are immaterial. HSAs are the answer. Hannity said so. You say health care, I say HSA and quickly change the subject.
Might as well say you are repealing and replacing Obamacare with Roth IRAs. It's so gross.

I think that coupling HSAs with high deductible policies is a wonderful policy. But it's not a replacement for Obamacare--which needs replacing.
Obamacare has the high deductible policies, but pretty much killed HSAs.

I agree, but what are the details? There's a reason they are so vague on the issue. My suspicion is there are no details.

Only suspicion???

Fox News has never really supported him. Only Hannity has stuck by him. You need to stop thinking that there is a difference between neocons and neoliberals -- there isn't. The US has had, basically, the same policies for everything since HW Bush was running Reagan's second term.

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Its not really a new development. They have been doing this for months.

(08-18-2016 07:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Fox News is smart, they know a sinking ship when they see one.

Eternal butthurt.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-18-2016 07:28 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Unlikely. A TV network is an awful lot of infrastructure to assemble, and they'd be months away even if they found a turnkey situation they could buy out and re-name (like Al-Jazeera America) and would then have no presidential campaign to keep the brand momentum going. Starting early on the network, of course, undermines the whole enterprise - you couldn't hide the staffing up.

So yeah, someone might have suggested this to The Donald (probably the massively butthurt Roger Ailes, seeking a new billionaire patron), and he might have even agreed it would be a good idea, but executing it seems really difficult.

RT America is available

Tom, homosexuals have a voice. Rightfully so. It's getting everyone to agree that's the problem.

Can't dictate opinion.

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Other media outlets are also thinking of the same thing.

(08-18-2016 09:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 07:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Saw a clip of FOX News the five basically tearing DJT to shreds. Greg Gutfeld basically accused DJT of running his campaign for the purpose of losing then starting a new Breitbart TV network with DJT and Roger Ailes. It appeared as if others on the show, including Dana Perino, agreed with him.

Basically, they opined that the point of bringing in the new leadership is to run the DJT campaign to the same people that come to his rallies, then form a new network the day after the election.

Anyone think that this is possible?

Other media outlets are also thinking of the same thing.

Most people have tuned out the mainstream liberal propaganda, I mean news.