Is @FoxNews really as biased this primary as some claim?

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Welcome to the Debut of Fox Watch.

In response to months of outcries from listeners and readers alike, I am starting a new weekend feature here at Conservative Review. So many of you have complained to me that Fox News has abandon any pretense of "fair and balanced" to become a de fact Super PAC for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, that I feel compelled to temporarily dive back into the cable news world I abandoned on behalf of my own sanity to see for myself.

Which means starting today, and continuing every weekend until the Republican Party has its 2016 nominee, I'm going Rudy Martzke on what many consider to be the king of all conservative media.

Welcome to the debut of Fox Watch.

Hannity Removes All Pretense of Objectivity

In case you've been missing the media coverage during the long quest to rediscover Ann Coulter's lost integrity, Sean Hannity loves him some Donald Trump like Bill Clinton loved White House intern pools (42 "interviews" and counting, by the way). Still, up until this week's contentious interview with GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, Hannity was still claiming objectivity. That's all out the window, especially with Hannity now helping to publicly single out delegates so they can be, um, "encouraged" (for lack of a better word) to support Hannity's Mr. Trump.

Study Confirms Fox Most Biased Network of the Cycle

Studies throughout this primary have documented repeatedly how Trump has received untold billions in free publicity from the media covering his campaign reality show. And the worst offender of them all is Fox, according to the conservative media watch dog Media Research Center.

MRC documents that from March 21-Apri 15, a period of time when Cruz was winning five straight states in delegate blowouts, Trump and his surrogates were given almost three times more coverage on Fox as Cruz and his campaign was. Making "fair and balanced" Fox easily the most imbalanced of the networks. CNN slightly favored Trump in its coverage while MSNBC actually slightly favored John Kasich. Yes, there's a joke there we don't have time for.

MRC also notes that Fox likely would've favored Trump even more if not for the primary calendar shifting to New York, which brought the campaigns to their backyard. Speaking of New York...

Fox has Trumpgasm over New York Primary Results

New York, a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican for president since Ronald Reagan’s landslide in 1984, is now suddenly a bell-weather in the minds of some Fox News hosts for how the country could rally around Trump.

“The mainstream media led you to believe that women didn’t support Donald Trump," said Ainsley Earhardt on Fox and Friends, who then clapped like a trained seal while pointing out that 57% of Republican women in Trump's home state voted for him in a low-turnout primary that had fewer voters than Wisconsin's.

Maybe this is where a less star-struck journalist might point out the recent Gallup Poll showed Trump with a 70% unfavorable among women. This is just one reason why our very own Mark Levin slammed Fox for its "pom pom" coverage of Trump winning his home state.

But wait, there's more.

Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade may as well have been holding guest Eric Trump’s hand and stroking his hair when he moped that “people are thrown off by the delegate system...it seems corrupt.”

Shepard Smith, who has a history of disparaging conservatives on the air, said "Donald Trump wiped the floor with Ted Cruz and his New York values.” Except the one question Cruz actually bested Trump on in the New York exit polling was "shares my values." Go figure.

Finally, Eric Bolling opined that Trump's primary win could turn New York from "blue to red" in November. Yeah, except for the part where Bernie Sanders received a quarter of a million more votes than Trump did in New York on Tuesday, and he lost to Hillary Clinton by double-digits. So, just a bit outside there, Mr. Uecker.

O'Reilly Declares the Voting Over

Bill O'Reilly had good news this week for voters in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon, Washington, California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota. See, these are all states scheduled to close out the GOP primary calendar, but their services will no longer be necessary according to O'Reilly. Now that liberal New York has spoken, O'Reilly says conservatives in those states still to come need not vote, because it's all over. So save yourselves the time. Sure, Trump is still nowhere near the magical 1237 mark, but the "no spin zone" has spoken.

So say we all. Or not.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

And these pieces do what to help conservatives? As you know I am not a fan of the constant bashing of all the folks supporting Trump. Statements like billions for Trump is just hyperbole. Many of the comments were truths - Trump did wipe the floor with Cruz in NY. The delegate system does seem corrupt. Eric B, Ann C Brian K. and Shawn H are not the enemy.

You have to win them over, you cannot win the Presidency without them voting for the nominee.

While I do not want Trump to be the nominee, I am not so sure all those purists that are whining (who sound like the Democrats, dividing people) are folks to be followed.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, it's your prerogative not to agree with me or the National Review. As an MBA holder from the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, I would expect you to have a better understanding of the #NeverTrump movement than most #NeverTrump critics given that MBA holders typically have a better grasp of economics than the average Trump supporter (see below). I know Trumpkins truly believe Trump will make their lives better if he becomes President but anyone who understands economics should know that a Trump presidency would hurt American incomes (see article below). But that's okay if you don't agree with me. Just don't seem angry when a large portion of the educated populace refuse to kiss Trump's ring like so many on Fox News.



How A Trump Presidency Would Hurt American Incomes

If Donald Trump is elected, Americans are likely to see their incomes decline by thousands of dollars every year. The world economy is already on thin ice, with many countries on the edge of a recession. A Trump presidency will push us over the edge, and Americans are likely experience crashing incomes, millions of lost jobs, and untold businesses failing.

There are four things about a Trump presidency that I expect to cause a great deal of economic damage: restricting trade, expanding the size of government, causing a debt crisis, and weaker property rights.

We Can’t Punish China Without Punishing Ourselves More

First, Trump promises to tax trade with foreign countries like China and Mexico, even allies like Canada and Japan. Tough trade talk sounds good, but a giant tax on China won’t hurt Chinese producers as much as it hurts American consumers, especially working-class families. Of course, the hypocrisy in all this is a Trump tariff will hurt many, many of Trump clothing brands like Trump ties manufactured in China and Trump shirts made in Bangladesh. David Lettermanconfronted the Donald four years ago on this, and Trump hasn’t changed anything.

The reality is that free trade is good. The world has grown rich together on free trade since 1945, but Trump promises to destroy that, and I believe him. When Trump says he will raise tariffs by 45 percent, the effect will be higher prices. Higher prices will limit what you can afford. Fewer cars, fewer clothes, fewer everything, even if your paycheck is stable.

When Trump says he will raise tariffs by 45 percent, the effect will be higher prices.
The second danger is that American paychecks will not be stable. Under President Trump, your paycheck will shrink. A host of Trump policies will cause the demand for labor to fall, meaning fewer jobs and a slow decline in pay overall. I pity the young men and women graduating from high school and college and entering the hollow job market in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The main reason paychecks will shrink is that Trump has promised “government will pay” for everyone’s health care. Free health care means shadow taxes on payrolls and limits on how often people can see their doctor. It’s called rationing in other countries. Imagine your child is sick: you call on Monday morning for an appointment, but you will not be able to see a doctor for two weeks, if you’re lucky. Meanwhile, your compensation may go up, but the government will be skimming even more of it, so take-home pay will get smaller.

A Debt Crisis Is a Horrible Thing to Live Through

The third thing Trumponomics will do is cause a debt crisis. The size of the U.S. national debt rose above $19 trillion dollars a few days ago. This is the first modern election where the national debt is larger than gross domestic product (GDP). The debt has grown immensely during the Obama presidency. Not only does the Trump campaign have no plan to cut federal spending, his health-care promise implies a bigger government.

Millions of jobs will disappear, interest rates will spike to double digits, and those lucky enough to keep jobs will have very low salaries.
Who pays for Trump’s big government? No one. More accurately, the future will pay for his largess, plus interest. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, a Trump presidency will slash tax revenue by $12 trillion dollars over the next decade, which will make the debt problem even worse. Won’t such lower rates stimulate the economy? Yes, but the dynamic effect would still cause a $10 trillion larger debt, matching Obama’s worst deficits of $1 trillion per year.

Try to imagine a family with credit card debt that is bigger than its annual household income. This is the problem America faces, and Trump’s policy would simply add more credit cards, which is not a good solution for the kids. We have to appreciate that someday soon this mountain of debt will crumble. It will not just be a sad story of slower growth, it will be a story of negative growth. Millions of jobs will disappear, interest rates will spike to double digits, and those lucky enough to keep jobs will have very low salaries.

Say Goodbye to Property Rights

Fourth, property rights will be less secure under a Trump presidency because he is already threatening to abuse the government’s authority to take private property. The Constitution calls this the right of “eminent domain,” and it was designed for extremely limited, public use. In recent decades, wealthy private developers like Trump have convinced local governments to essentially abuse eminent domain for private development.

The world economy is ripe for a recession, and the next president will either use that crisis to reaffirm free-market principles or react furiously with big-government power grabs.
This abuse was scandalously affirmed in one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions, Kelo v. New London in 2005. It’s a decision conservatives despise because increased abuse hurts the confidence of investors. In countries where property rights are strong, growth is strong.

Could Trump surprise us and turn out to be like Ronald Reagan—the former Democrat, former movie star, who led a resurgent conservative Republican wave? I doubt it. Reagan was a principled conservative since at least 1964’s famous “A time for choosing” speech, a speech given 17 years before he took up residence at the White House in 1981. Trump is an empty suit at best, a RINO at worst.

My best guess is that the world economy is ripe for a recession, and the next president will either use that crisis to reaffirm free-market principles or react furiously with big-government power grabs. I would not rule out Trump trying to nationalize whole industries and establish national price controls—that’s the way he thinks. Power. Strength. Size. He makes the childish mistake of equating the government with the country.

It’s wrong, of course, and it’s the opposite of Reagan.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/02/how-a-trump-presidency-would-hurt-american-incomes/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Look on the bright side Mike, you will only have to put up with me for a little while longer. I really don't intend to make that many posts after the general election and if Trump becomes the GOP nominee, I will be pretty much finished here altogether. And in about four years when I'm back in Ohio, you won't be seeing me at all on this forum. You know that will put a smile on a lot of faces here.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

O'Reilly says he is not biased but anyone with half a brain knows he is lying.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I look at the economics differently. It doesn't matter who is POTUS, American incomes are going down. Its cannot be stopped. The world is in a debt super cycle, and there is NO FREE LUNCH - time to pay up. Demographics are destroying how govt is funded because so many programs are driven based an an ever increasing and growing country.

The world is going to have another recession and no one will stop it. So I am offended when anyone, from Sanders, Clinton to Trump to Cruz say they are going to get us back to 5% growth. They are lying or don't understand macro economics.

I also look at the optics of all this differently now from a Gospel perspective. Don't presume that God is only on a particular political persuasion side.

Anyway, I need to get to work this morning!

 

[MidTnBlues]

I look at the economics differently. It doesn't matter who is POTUS, American incomes are going down. Its cannot be stopped.

James Bessen has a theory that new technologies are playing a part in stagnant wages. First boom was textiles and the production of cloths went up, but wages barely budged, but 40 years later wages were more than twice what it was during the boom. His name has a link to his book if you like reading stuff like that. Pretty good book. Although, I would almost argue that technology changes at an incredible pace and training is too slow and expensive to keep up. But his theory is that eventually all this technology will mature and create wage growth as it did with textiles.

I've been really interested in how automation (which has an impact on wages) will impact the economy. Some say it will; others like Bessen think it will plateau and not cause a problem. Either way labor supply is higher than demand right now, but it does matter who the President is because policy has an impact on that. It also matters who he/she staffs. All those cartoons that I enjoyed as a kid was from Mark Fowler removing regulations for product placements in children shows during the Reagan administration. Mattel had a field day with that move.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

MTB,

I think is a combination of what your reference, and a global economy, plus Govt debt and demographics of the old free world. Our middle class will continue to drop until the good portion of the world catches up and then it will reset. This is why concepts like a $15 min wage will not deliver - companies will just automate faster. All of this doesn't mean you can't succeed, its just going to be different - one truly has to deliver measurable value in order to be paid well.

Keep in mind, a large middle class is something that was new last century, its not the norm historically. These macros things are bigger than individual countries and their tax policy. And what is the most frustrating thing is no politician on either side is educating the populace on these trends - they both pander. Trump and Sanders are the worst with the others not far behind.

I think America's biggest problem is we are trying to protect our way of life, we are playing prevent defense. All of us, from the govt on down to the individual need to hungry again.