This Favreau is the lying ******* who coined the phrase “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”
I'm skeptical of her "conversion". Clearly she is trying to suck up to conservatives. But I do not trust her. I wouldn't watch her show on Newsmax or OAN. Fox would be happy to have her as their ratings continue to plummet.
They all follow whatever narrative is sent from above. Sandra Smith on Fox used to be very pro Trump. Now, she gets caught on a hot mic mocking Trump and the allegations of fraud. THEY are all frauds.
I watched his interview with Hunter Biden's former business partner the week before the election. He did a good job with the interview. He implied in his comments that he had to plead with Fox to let him do the interview, and he thanked Fox a couple of times for letting him do it. He also suppported Fox on Parler in the supspension - nonsuspension of Judge Jeanine. I guess that's wobbly, but not in the Megyn Kelly style.
They could each use the attention it would bring, but she will cost them. Can they afford her? I wonder how they would look at that sort of hiring? Would it be smart? (I say yes if its at a price they doesnt tie their hands) Or would it be selling out? (that could also be a "yes") Maybe they will just say, "We cant afford you, even at a reduced rate" And what about from her side? I asked that question above but no one answered. What is she thinking? She is alienating liberals just as they are regaining the White House Maybe she sees market opportunity in being the loyal opposition. If so, her options are limited. There are only 3 cable options for her (2 of which are underfunded) and the only other option is some sort of internet presence like Glenn Beck. However it falls, none of those will ever match what NBC gave her. Maybe she put it all in TSLA and doesnt have to care anymore?
I saw that and agree. That was a good interview. He let the guy talk and stayed out of his way for the most part.
Drudge flipped about 2 years ago. Subtle at first but gained strength during the presidential campaign.
The media has moved the goalposts, again For the last week, their catchphrase was "lack of evidence of widespread fraud," as if that were a legal standard But now it "lack of evidence of massive fraud" Who sent the memo to them to change from widespread to massive? And why?
Good try. See narrative from USA Today. The goalposts change at all MSM stations from no evidence ever to no evidence of”massive.” As I posted on the other thread, PA voting records have many voters 120 years old. The oldest living American today is 113. So as they find these cases, they will push the numbers far away that it isn’t enough.
iis MSM isn't the only one moving goal posts. Think Bubba will admit maybe there is something suspicious about all those people who were born in 1900 voting?
These are data entry errors. 1/1/00 is the default if there is a data error or if no DOB is entered. False: Photos from the Michigan voter database show numerous “voters” who have the birth year of 1/1/1900 amounting to voter fraud.
