Re: OT: Ukraine WH-meeting news coverage

On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 23:51:18 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
 

On Mar 2, 2025 at 3:39:20 PM PST, "suzeeq" <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
>

On 3/2/2025 3:06 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

  super70s  <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

  On 2025-03-02 15:59:32 +0000, suzeeq said:
>

  On 3/2/2025 6:43 AM, NoBody wrote:

  On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 22:55:00 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
  wrote:
>

  On 3/1/2025 8:47 PM, Rhino wrote:

  On 2025-03-01 5:01 PM, moviePig wrote:

>
  A quick glance at major TV news websites puts the Zelensky WH meeting
  as the top story at ABC, CBS, and NBC.  Fox, meanwhile, places it
  fourth, with the headline:
>
       QUESTIONS SWIRL AROUND POSSIBLE ZELENSKYY RESIGNATION AFTER HEATED
  TRUMP EXCHANGE
>
  (And Fox's next story gives Brett Favre's opinion on the WH debacle.)
>
  Even now, this sort of schism still takes me by surprise...
>
>

  It really distresses you when the major media outlets don't all take
  exactly the same "correct" line on the issues of the day, doesn't it?
  You would have LOVED the Soviet Union back in the day or both
  contemporary Russia and China: all the "news" outlets take the same line.
>
  Just to REALLY undermine your sense of order, you should watch Brett
  Baier's interview with Zelenskyy on Fox. You will be VERY surprised at
  how he DOESN'T pile on to Zelenskyy.
>
  Then again, you'd need to "invest" some time and I know you hate doing
  that - unless of course you know in advance that a recommended video is
  going to take the "progressive" line. But here it is anyway, just in
  case....
>
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfqLcBwUT_E [23 minutes]

>
  I watched the first half ...which, with one big exception, seemed a
  relatively normal interview.  That exception was that Baier opened with
  -- and *pursued* -- a suggestion that Zelensky owed Trump an *apology*.
  I found that a true WTF moment ...similar to how Fox's website (above)
  leads with a question about Zelensky's *resignation*, ffs.
>

>
  He does owe Trump an apology.  He was rude, ungracious, and
  unthankful.  It's never a good idea to try to lecture the person who's
  giving you a ton of money.
>

  Trump was even more rude and downright bullied him. Then JD jumped in
  and double down on it. They both provoked Zelienskyy, and you expect
  him to be thankful for that?

>
  Vance thinks he's the heir to the MAGA throne. He's running for
  president and assumes all these draconian Trump policies are going to
  be popular after they've had four years to ripen on the vine, I
  wouldn't bet on it. He gave the same kind of blustery "campaign speech"
  in Germany last week.

    No different than DeSantis running for the nomination in 2024. We have
  learned that a Republican who isn't Trump will not be taken seriously by
  Republican primary voters by running as an imitation Trump.
    The only one Vance convinced was Trump himself, since he turned 180
  degrees from condemning Trump to praising Trump.
    There is no Republican Party without Trump. Trump has no annointed
  successor. I guess they'll all have to run... as themselves... in the
  2028 presidential primary season.
 

Let's hope so.

>
+1
>

 That would be nice but the truth is many of the likely Republican
candidates will just try to run as Trump 2.0. Not that any seem likely
to succeed but they are likely to see that as their best opportunity
to win the election. I'm not sure what the Democrats will do as the
only one that would run if he could and have a strong platform is
Bernie Sanders (yes, I know he is officially an Independent) , but he
will clearly be too old to run at that point. I don't see AOC making a
run for the Presidency then so I'm unclear who else is likely to step
up in a 2027 campaign.
 Other than Bernie Sanders I can't think of anyone that is outside the
two parties that could make a run for the Presidency.