Media Bias

[Scot Dutchy]

There is no reason to continue to speak with Trump supporters. Truth is difficult for them to handle just like their leader.

[Cunt]

It's not wilful ignorance, any more than you are displaying 'wilful ignorance' by refusing to look at the other side. (what IS 'Q' anyway? What has been claimed by 'Q'? Is it possible that the messagees are coming from inside the Trump Administration? Didn't he FIRE everyone at least once?)

Anyway, why don't you tell me what would falsify your belief in the Trump-Russia-Collusion conspiracy theory?

Simple question for you to answer - how will reality affect your fantasy?

continue to speak

I'm sorry things are so awful for you in your life, Scot Dutchy.

[Forty Two]

Basically, Trump supporters can never, ever concede that there was anything dodgy in his campaign, his moral character or his bizarre behaviour. Very, very ostrich like...

Trump opponents can never, ever state anything specific that has been demonstrated to be "dodgy" in his campaign (other than standard dodginess of campaigns in general).

His moral character is not an issue for me, as I assume he, like most politicians, are amoral opportunists. I do not find his moral character particularly concerning, relative to other prominent politicians.

Regarding bizarre behavior, you'll have to be more specific.

It seems to me that what Trump opponents do is speak very much in generalities, and an overall dislike of Trump. Which is fine - nobody has to like other people all the time, and I am quite sure that if I knew Trump in real life, I would not like him very much. Trump opponents also take their opposition to him personally into an opposition of every, single, thing he says or does.

The loathing hides in every snicker and smirk on every pundit's face on CNN, MSNBC and the sunday news shows. It's in every ridiculous commentary - where any allegation, no matter how unsubstantiated is taken as true, while the same people are quick to immediately rush to the defense of other politicians, more to their liking. To me, the bias is obvious.

[Cunt]

Look to the ways media has been embarrassed this year...it's always (at least as far as the big ones) the media falling all over themselves to push the 'Orange Man Bad' narrative.

Covington, this latest 'hate crime' hoax, several others...these 'errors' are clustering over to one side...almost like they are a certain kind of error...

[Cunt]

The new 'hate crime' hoax is the Jussie Smollett one. Washington Post op ed columnist wrote that it 'needs to be true', or it would damage the vulnerable groups Smollett objectified in his hoax-drama.

[Joe]

Basically, Trump supporters can never, ever concede that there was anything dodgy in his campaign, his moral character or his bizarre behaviour. Very, very ostrich like...

Trump opponents can never, ever state anything specific that has been demonstrated to be "dodgy" in his campaign (other than standard dodginess of campaigns in general).

His moral character is not an issue for me, as I assume he, like most politicians, are amoral opportunists. I do not find his moral character particularly concerning, relative to other prominent politicians.

Regarding bizarre behavior, you'll have to be more specific.

It seems to me that what Trump opponents do is speak very much in generalities, and an overall dislike of Trump. Which is fine - nobody has to like other people all the time, and I am quite sure that if I knew Trump in real life, I would not like him very much. Trump opponents also take their opposition to him personally into an opposition of every, single, thing he says or does.

The loathing hides in every snicker and smirk on every pundit's face on CNN, MSNBC and the sunday news shows. It's in every ridiculous commentary - where any allegation, no matter how unsubstantiated is taken as true, while the same people are quick to immediately rush to the defense of other politicians, more to their liking. To me, the bias is obvious.

You illustrate Jim's point, Forty Two.

[Seabass]

"Left biased" CNN hires Republican operative to run 2020 coverage...

On Tuesday, a CNN spokesperson confirmed to The Daily Beast that the network has hired Republican political advisor Sarah Isgur as the politics editor helming CNN’s 2020 coverage. The move was first reported by Politico.

Throughout her decade-long career in Republican politics, Isgur has served as an advisor to Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney, and was Carly Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager for the 2016 Republican primary. Until last year, Isgur was a top spokesperson for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice.

“People are generally confused,” another editorial employee said, adding that the decision to hire a partisan operative for an editorial position comes off as “very bizarre.”

Indeed, it is not unusual for cable-news networks like CNN to hire political operatives as on-air commentators or opinion writers. But it is almost unheard of for a high-profile operative with zero journalistic experience to land a top editorial role at a major news organization.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-staff ... 0-coverage

[Hermit]

It's not wilful ignorance, any more than you are displaying 'wilful ignorance' by refusing to look at the other side.

The factories are struggling to manufacture replacements for the irony meters you keep blowing up. I watched that Tim Pool vlog you linked to, Lauren Southern's lies and I've read numerous articles by right wing pundits Coito Two drew our attention to. You, on the other hand have repeatedly announced how you won't read or listen to links provided because they come from a leftie. Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

[Forty Two]

Basically, Trump supporters can never, ever concede that there was anything dodgy in his campaign, his moral character or his bizarre behaviour. Very, very ostrich like...

Trump opponents can never, ever state anything specific that has been demonstrated to be "dodgy" in his campaign (other than standard dodginess of campaigns in general).

His moral character is not an issue for me, as I assume he, like most politicians, are amoral opportunists. I do not find his moral character particularly concerning, relative to other prominent politicians.

Regarding bizarre behavior, you'll have to be more specific.

It seems to me that what Trump opponents do is speak very much in generalities, and an overall dislike of Trump. Which is fine - nobody has to like other people all the time, and I am quite sure that if I knew Trump in real life, I would not like him very much. Trump opponents also take their opposition to him personally into an opposition of every, single, thing he says or does.

The loathing hides in every snicker and smirk on every pundit's face on CNN, MSNBC and the sunday news shows. It's in every ridiculous commentary - where any allegation, no matter how unsubstantiated is taken as true, while the same people are quick to immediately rush to the defense of other politicians, more to their liking. To me, the bias is obvious.

You illustrate Jim's point, Forty Two.

What has been identified as "dodgy about his campaign? And, what specific "bizarre" behavior?

His "moral character," well, I'm not a moralizer - I find the left's sudden "moral majority" stance to be rather odd, given their prior stance that person morals are matters of opinion, and not to be something we judge people about.

[Forty Two]

"Left biased" CNN hires Republican operative to run 2020 coverage...

Maybe they're trying to combat their strong bias toward the left and the democrat party in particular? It is a strange hire. She was a Carly Fiorina senior adviser and a "never trump" person, then the Trump administration was criticized for bringing her on into the DOJ with Jeff Sessions, and now she's off to CNN. But I'm sure that AOC and the gang are upset about this. They would likely have preferred a Democrat loyalist to be hired, as CNN often does.

[Joe]

Basically, Trump supporters can never, ever concede that there was anything dodgy in his campaign, his moral character or his bizarre behaviour. Very, very ostrich like...

Trump opponents can never, ever state anything specific that has been demonstrated to be "dodgy" in his campaign (other than standard dodginess of campaigns in general).

His moral character is not an issue for me, as I assume he, like most politicians, are amoral opportunists. I do not find his moral character particularly concerning, relative to other prominent politicians.

Regarding bizarre behavior, you'll have to be more specific.

It seems to me that what Trump opponents do is speak very much in generalities, and an overall dislike of Trump. Which is fine - nobody has to like other people all the time, and I am quite sure that if I knew Trump in real life, I would not like him very much. Trump opponents also take their opposition to him personally into an opposition of every, single, thing he says or does.

The loathing hides in every snicker and smirk on every pundit's face on CNN, MSNBC and the sunday news shows. It's in every ridiculous commentary - where any allegation, no matter how unsubstantiated is taken as true, while the same people are quick to immediately rush to the defense of other politicians, more to their liking. To me, the bias is obvious.

You illustrate Jim's point, Forty Two.

What has been identified as "dodgy about his campaign? And, what specific "bizarre" behavior?

His "moral character," well, I'm not a moralizer - I find the left's sudden "moral majority" stance to be rather odd, given their prior stance that person morals are matters of opinion, and not to be something we judge people about.

You mean other than the people indicted, the unreported overtures from Russians, and Trump's lame excuses for not releasing his taxes? I know you excuse these things , along with the bizarre firing of people by tweet, calling the media the enemy of the people, and his screwball foreign policy, but most people find this stuff bizarre - irrespective of whether they think they're good policy.

As I said, you made Jim's point.

[Cunt]

It's not wilful ignorance, any more than you are displaying 'wilful ignorance' by refusing to look at the other side.

The factories are struggling to manufacture replacements for the irony meters you keep blowing up. I watched that Tim Pool vlog you linked to, Lauren Southern's lies and I've read numerous articles by right wing pundits Coito Two drew our attention to. You, on the other hand have repeatedly announced how you won't read or listen to links provided because they come from a leftie. Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

I am not interested when there is no point in contention.

Like when trannies keep pressing me to 'learn' that people identify as different.

Fuck, we all KNOW that. It's like telling you that you need to read information about how wrong slaving is, implying that you support slavery.

I know about trannies. I know about accepting people as they are. I'm not going to go read a bunch of stuff telling me that some people identify as trannies, and that some people think acceptance is best.

Especially from assholes who start the conversation insistent that I must be transphobe, and must be ignorant of their delicious 'facts'.

What I would like from you, Hermit, is for you to go present yourself as a rational Republican Trump supporter, and note the response to yourself.

Maybe then you'll start to see the awful bias. I mean, tell me, who is the Trump supporter you most respect? What are their best points in favour of continued support of Trump?

[Forty Two]

You mean other than the people indicted, the unreported overtures from Russians, and Trump's lame excuses for not releasing his taxes? I know you excuse these things , along with the bizarre firing of people by tweet, calling the media the enemy of the people, and his screwball foreign policy, but most people find this stuff bizarre - irrespective of whether they think they're good policy.

As I said, you made Jim's point.

Indicted for what is the important question. Manafort, for example, being indicted had nothing to do with the campaign.

Unreported "overtures from Russians?" Name one that's improper?

There's no requirement that he release his taxes. Obama didn't release his educational records. Both were commonly released by predecessors.

I excuse the tax return thing just as you probably don't care that Obama didn't release his educational records. And, honestly, I've never cared if candidates release their tax returns. There is very little of interest in tax returns, and that's why it was so common for people to release them. Trump's returns are regularly audited. If the IRS found an issue, they'd prosecute.

He didn't call "the media" the enemy of the people. He called "the fake news media" the enemy of the people, because they lie and twist and propagandize, and I don't disagree with him on that.

Screwball foreign policy? See how you phrase these things? WHAT specific policies are you referring to?

Most of the people find "screwball foreign policy" bizarre - sure -- but, when I criticize Obama's foreign policy, I would say /"The Iran deal was crap and here's why..." You just declare the entirety of foreign policy screwball.

It's impossible to respond to generalities - -"overtures from Russians?" - which ones? The meeting with the lawyer and Trump Jr? There was nothing "wrong" with that meeting, and nobody was required to "disclose" that meeting to anyone. If a Russian says to Bernie Sanders "I have dirt on donald Trump (say a video of him banging a stripper in Moscow)" and Sanders says, "sure! Let me see what that information is!" and meets with the guy - there is nothing illegal or immoral about that. So, what "overtures" are you referring to, specifically?

[pErvinalia]

Black is white.

[Hermit]

It's not wilful ignorance, any more than you are displaying 'wilful ignorance' by refusing to look at the other side.

The factories are struggling to manufacture replacements for the irony meters you keep blowing up. I watched that Tim Pool vlog you linked to, Lauren Southern's lies and I've read numerous articles by right wing pundits Coito Two drew our attention to. You, on the other hand have repeatedly announced how you won't read or listen to links provided because they come from a leftie. Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

I am not interested when there is no point in contention.

And you know there's no point in contention without reading or listening to it. Seeing a link is offered by Seabass is all the information you need to come to that realisation. Uhu.

What I would like from you, Hermit, is for you to go present yourself as a rational Republican Trump supporter, and note the response to yourself.

Show me how it's done. Present yourself as a rational feminist, and note the response to yourself.