Involvement in 2020 election lies immediately disqualies someone from airtime in my opinion. She should be publicly shamed and I am here for it.
Todd
- Thread starter atlanta cock#
- Start date
That's horseshit. If you believe she lied, expose her in a debate. I think the NBC talent didn't want someone firing back at them when they went on their J6 rants that they were participating in get Trump at all cost and running stories they knew were false like the laptop being Russian propaganda that dings their credibility. Iows, if the facts are on your side, you aren't afraid of the debate and you provide quotes from McDaniel and let her try to defend them. If the facts lead to you being what you accuse her of being, rant like children.
I don't disagree with you about exposing her in a debate. I wasn't clear in my description of "air time" so apologies there. Bring her on for a one time discussion like Sunday. Don't pay her $300k and call her a "political contributor" (kudos to Ronna for getting the deal though). That's nonsense and NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC should know better (Fox has no shame so go there).
I'm all for legitimate discourse. We need more of it. Over half the stuff I read is from former republican party members/strategists because I found I actually agree with most of their view points and they reach across the aisle for compromise. I also don't agree with every democratic platform and will call it out.
Ronna doesn't bring that to the table, especially when she admits she will say anything for a dollar. She a parrot. It's one thing for us to think it....she actually told us who she is.
As to your comment about Ronna and her new ex-colleagues, her treatment of them in the past as RNC chair is one of the reasons they don't want here there. And i think that's fair.
She is complicit in spreading lies and this has to be snuffed out. Y'all may not agree with me and that's fine. But these people that corrupted the minds of millions of people on a daily basis don't deserve any oxygen in the name of "diversity of thought".
Case in point: bill Barr. I don't like bill barr; I don't agree with bill Barr on just about anything. But I respect his decision to stand up to trump and I am able to give him some grace to listen to him on other issues.
So let's have legitimate discourse. A former mouthpiece for election denial who "takes one for the team" is not the answer there. That's my main point in all of this.
But she is not limited to only speaking of J6. Even though I don't think she was a great fit for the job, the lady was literally the chair for the RNC and could have brought some balance to NBC. As I mentioned above, I think it would be interesting to see Psaki and RM debate about J6, censorship, tax policy, foreign aid even though I'm not a fan of either. Sometimes you just have to admit that someone had access to decision makers and may be able to talk about things you don't know. That is how an enlightened society is supposed to work. As RFK Jr said, those on the side of censorship have always been the bad guys.
Credibility has to account for something though. If she is not credible in terms of one major topic, it impacts her credibility elsewhere. We should be critical of those who are given airtime.
I think we may be arguing 2 different points. I'm not for censoring her; no one is. She is free to say what she wants to whomever will put her on the air. But she shouldn't be hired as a political contributor just because she was RNC chair (a job she got, and ironically lost, because of trump). She should be hired based on her merit and credibility; to which I feel she has none at the moment given her past conduct. Words matter and we have to stand firm and hold those accountable for their actions.
I don't disagree about your debate scenario and probably would rather watch paint dry or scratch my eyeballs out (they are different sides of the same coin).
I dont have the energy to even get into RFKjr at the moment haha.
I'm not defending her credibility and quite frankly have never listened to anything other than soundbites from her in the past. However, I would say she is as credible as Chuck Todd and Jen Psaki and I think that's why the petulant children at NBC acted out. They'd just rather dismiss her as being a gaslighter and continuing gaslighting their audience without any push back.
I mean George Stephanopoulos was one of the architects behind Clinton's bimbo eruption strategy. Psaki carried the water for the censorship on social media of doctors that didn't agree with the vaccine policy and anyone that spoke about the lab leak theory. Partisans partisan and they are all over the news. The children at NBC simply want to silence anyone that pushes back against their J6 narrative and that's not a good thing whether you like RM or not.
"I don't know what I'm talking about... but hear me out..."
LOL...Cute but here is what I'm talking about. If you are going to deplatform someone for spinning, gaslighting and demonizing during their time as a partisan mouthpiece, you may want to make sure your straight news anchor isn't doing the same thing.
And here's one of NBC's family of petulant children that led the charge against the gaslighting RM.
Last edited:
Noticed you did not mention hildog and her saying the 2016 election was stolen from her.
I must've missed the part where any network hired hildog to be a political contributor after months of spreading election lies resulting in her team storming the capitol...🤷♂️
Similar threads
