jimnyc
02-15-2019, 03:56 PM
And the left went berserk over Trump and this couple? Never mind an entire collection, we were talking just ONE FAMILY and their heartbreak. And the left went nuts about it.
And now when it's the loss of one life, they couldn't care less.
You know what? I don't think they gave a shit about any of them to begin with!
---
CNN Feels Pain for Angel Moms? No, They've Been Mostly Ignored Over Last Two Years
When President Trump responded to Jim Acosta's hectoring on Friday about manufacturing a border emergency, the president suggested he talk to the "Angel moms" who have lost children due to illegal immigrants. After the press conference, Acosta insisted "our hearts go out to them."
But they can not stand the president citing them as an argument. Just minutes after Acosta, CNN analyst Kirsten Powers also said their hearts empathized....but she couldn't stick to empathy.
KIRSTEN POWERS: This has long been a position of people on the right, though. So he has a captive audience on this. And if you look at the Angel moms, for example, who, of course, our hearts go out to. I mean, it's so tragic. You have a woman --
KATE BOLDUAN: 100 percent.
POWERS: -- who lost her only son. Whose heart doesn't break when we see that? But then when you put that up against the statistics, it doesn't match up, that we have a crisis going on, where undocumented immigrants are coming in and murdering people.
Anecdotes aren't statistics, right? Is that why CNN didn't put on grieving Parkland moms and dads and student activists like David Hogg?? It didn't match the government facts on crime with guns? The term "Parkland kids" gets 30 mentions in the last year on CNN.
And yet, in this exchange, Bolduan is sputtering about how Trump won't use facts that don't match his narrative. CNN, heal thyself.
A quick Nexis search for the term "Angel moms" in CNN Transcripts (which covers most hours of the day) from January 20, 2017 to yesterday found TEN mentions of the term. Not ten stories. Not ten interviews with Angel moms. Ten mentions.
Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/02/15/angel-moms
And now when it's the loss of one life, they couldn't care less.
You know what? I don't think they gave a shit about any of them to begin with!
---
CNN Feels Pain for Angel Moms? No, They've Been Mostly Ignored Over Last Two Years
When President Trump responded to Jim Acosta's hectoring on Friday about manufacturing a border emergency, the president suggested he talk to the "Angel moms" who have lost children due to illegal immigrants. After the press conference, Acosta insisted "our hearts go out to them."
But they can not stand the president citing them as an argument. Just minutes after Acosta, CNN analyst Kirsten Powers also said their hearts empathized....but she couldn't stick to empathy.
KIRSTEN POWERS: This has long been a position of people on the right, though. So he has a captive audience on this. And if you look at the Angel moms, for example, who, of course, our hearts go out to. I mean, it's so tragic. You have a woman --
KATE BOLDUAN: 100 percent.
POWERS: -- who lost her only son. Whose heart doesn't break when we see that? But then when you put that up against the statistics, it doesn't match up, that we have a crisis going on, where undocumented immigrants are coming in and murdering people.
Anecdotes aren't statistics, right? Is that why CNN didn't put on grieving Parkland moms and dads and student activists like David Hogg?? It didn't match the government facts on crime with guns? The term "Parkland kids" gets 30 mentions in the last year on CNN.
And yet, in this exchange, Bolduan is sputtering about how Trump won't use facts that don't match his narrative. CNN, heal thyself.
A quick Nexis search for the term "Angel moms" in CNN Transcripts (which covers most hours of the day) from January 20, 2017 to yesterday found TEN mentions of the term. Not ten stories. Not ten interviews with Angel moms. Ten mentions.
Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/02/15/angel-moms